Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 23 May 25 May >

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul II (octopus) (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is one of those "fun" AfD's where there is a clear consensus to Don't Delete, but less of a consensus as to what should be done instead. Comments below are split between Merge and Keep and make reasoned arguments for each option. There is thus No Consensus as to whether the article should be kept on its own or merged. The Talk page is the appropriate venue for further discussion. Eluchil404 ( talk) 06:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Josh Vitters

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

I am not convinced that this person meets the Wikipedia notability criteria for baseball players. He has not played at the highest level of his sport, and there do not seem to be sufficient reliable, independent sources writing about his significance in his sport. I did find some news articles about him, but they were all of the 'local sports coverage' sort. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 23:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Qworty ( talk) 00:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I'm a little surprised if he has not received enough coverage for WP:GNG, since he has been one of Baseball America's top 100 prospects for 3 years and was the #3 pick of the draft. That will usually generate some coverage (e.g., at least a BA profile in their Prospects Handbook, a story about his being drafted) and since other sources seem to have had him rated highly, it seems like there would be others. He has had a profile in the annual Baseball Prospectus for the past 3 or 4 years. Rlendog ( talk) 00:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I could be wrong. I only noticed this article because of the recently-created article about his brother. Naturally, if there is enough coverage, I don't think this should be deleted, even if it hurts his brother's feelings. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 00:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
      • I found a bunch of coverage today (for some reason, these didn't come up yesterday): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. These, combined with whatever coverage Baseball America would have provided and the coverage he received in Baseball Prospectus, should be enough to demonstrate his notability and keep (and of course used to source the article). If not, I agree with Alex that merge would be the next best resolution. Rlendog ( talk) 21:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Merge to Chicago Cubs minor league players, as it is standard practice with current minor league players with articles to merge them with their team's minor league players page, if the player himself is not worthy of an article. Alex ( talk) 08:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He has been a top 100 prospect by Baseball America 3 times, that makes him notable in my opinion.-- Yankees10 18:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per A7 & G10. MrKIA11 ( talk) 02:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

UCSD Kubiak "chinaman" issue

UCSD Kubiak "chinaman" issue (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-neutral, non-notable, current event with no long term interest, of regional interest only, orphaned, among other things. Athene cunicularia ( talk) 23:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 00:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

The Queen Project

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

This band article was prodded under A7, and the prod was removed. I've performed a wp:before search, and cannot myself find indicia of notability under wp standards, including sufficient RS coverage. Epeefleche ( talk) 23:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A well argued discussion, though a few of the comments stray from what is strictly relevant to the deletion discussion. It's a close thing, but I see the rough consensus finding that the sources are a bit thin and transitory to truly meet the GNG. The fact that a number of those supporting the keeping of the article qualifed their support as "weak" was useful in finding the consensus here.-- Kubigula ( talk) 03:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

GingerBread Lane

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

Previously deleted after AFD with advertising and conflict of interest concerns. Was worked on by a user in userspace subpage, now brought here for community consideration on whether or not it should be deleted. Procedural nom, no opinion expressed by nominator. -- Cirt ( talk) 22:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete deleted previously for lack of notability, not seeing sufficient improvement. This article was created by the owner of the display and should be deleted as spam. The subject can be adequately covered (by an editor other than the owner) in the hotel's article. Nothing here worth saving. RadioFan ( talk) 23:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I disagree about covering it in the hotel article; the display is not part of the hotel's program and has been displayed many different places in different cities. If it is deleted, it should be deleted, period. -- MelanieN ( talk) 13:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment' I'd support delete as well. -- RadioFan ( talk) 14:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment my bad, the owner didn't create the article but he/she has been hounding me on my talk page to "reconsider" my !vote here which I find pretty sleazy. That's all an aside anyway, the article doesn't meet notability guidelines and is still very spammy. Can be adequately covered in the parent article on the hotel.-- RadioFan ( talk) 00:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep The article needs to be trimmed of puffery, and it's still COI. And most of the links provided are to passing mentions or photos, rather than in-depth coverage. But IMO two of the sources supplied - the Pittsburgh Gazette and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - provide in-depth coverage from two different Reliable Sources sufficient to meet Wikipedia's requirements. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment Those links asside, I'm thinking that WP:SPAM and WP:NOTTRAVEL trump here.-- RadioFan ( talk) 14:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this mind-numbingly trivial article per WP:SPAM, WP:GNG, and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an advertising web host or a directory for extremely trivial stuff such as this. In fact, this should have been speedied off the project, since it was already deleted through AfD once before. Qworty ( talk) 00:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I had nominated it for speedy deletion but pulled it back because the article was restored by an admin and assumed the admin would turn decline the speedy. Why waste more editor/admin's time? RadioFan ( talk) 00:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment about the COI inherent in this article: In the earlier AfD discussion, and on various talk pages since then, user Kcdcchef has been very frank in stating that (a) he is the creator and owner of Gingerbread Lane and (b) he "paid and contracted" someone to rewrite this article for him. (He seemed to feel that this satisfied a Wikipedia recommendation to have it written by a "neutral third party.") IMO this does not invalidate the notability of the exhibit as demonstrated by the sources I listed above, but other editors may wish to take it into account. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per MelanieN. I have made some efforts on cutting puffery down and am still not happy with the COI issues the author has raised. However, I think that the article in its current state does pass WP:GNG, and that the author is trying hard to work within Wikipedia's guidelines even if he's been making some missteps. —Tim Pierce ( talk) 17:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per MelanieN; though the article needs to cut down on puffery so that WP:SOAP is no longer applicable to it. It is not suitable to have the article covered under Hyatt Regency Crown Center as the connection seems more historical and aside from Kansas City, GingerBread Lane has appeared in other cities, including New York, Washington, D.C., and Pittsburgh. 08OceanBeachS.D. 01:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Trivial promotional mentions in local newspapers and only 1 actual article. If a major national or international source was found then I would be in favour of keeping but at the moment it fails WP:CORPDEPTH -- wintonian talk 02:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I'll be up front and say that part of the reason I recommended keeping the article is that I think it sounds like a nice project and because I appreciate that the author was trying to work within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, and I want to encourage that. I don't dispute that the article still has notability issues. I'm applying WP:IAR here a little bit. I can see how it would go the other way. —Tim Pierce ( talk) 16:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP:SPAM, fails WP:GNG JoeSperrazza ( talk) 13:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Sourced appear to meet the GNG threshold. COI and SPAM concerns should be resolved outside of this afd.-- Pink Bull 14:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject? Yep. Looks like it meets the general notability guideline, and is presumed notable. Any issues with the article (other than copyright or severe BLP concerns) can be addressed through normal editing procedure. Buddy431 ( talk) 14:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Significant coveragein reliable sources independent of the subject? Nope. These are trivial mentions in local media, of the kind that just about any show would garner. Nothing of substance. Also delete as a matter of principle in order to stick it to the the COI editors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I think that's unfortunate. If it fails WP:GNG that's a perfectly good reason to delete, but I regret seeing "sticking it to the COI editors" as a motivation, particularly when the editors in question are actively trying to work with Wikipedia editors to do things by the book. It goes against assuming good faith and not biting the newbies. We all should do what we think is right for Wikipedia, but let's not be mean about it. —Tim Pierce ( talk) 20:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Agree with FPAS; not enough substantial 3rd party coverage. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, the coverage manages to meet WP:GNG - frankie ( talk) 23:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was  : Article has been merged as described below into the Czeslaw Niemen by Muslim lo Juheu ( talk). Non admin closure. Edgepedia ( talk) 15:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Aerolit

Note: Merged into a new, more general, section Czeslaw Niemen#Niemen's support bands, per discussion below. Muslim lo Juheu ( talk) 17:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

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

This band article was prodded under A7, and the prod was removed without any reflection of meeting A7 prod criteria. I've performed a wp:before search, and cannot myself find indicia of notability under wp standards, including sufficient RS coverage. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche ( talk) 22:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Abysmally fails WP:MUSIC. Qworty ( talk) 00:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - Per above. Monterey Bay ( talk) 02:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article have references. This is not about some garage or dorm band. This is part pf Polish music history. This is a 1970s support band for a Polish celebrity singer Czesław Niemen created by Niemen himself. "Aerolit+Niemen" has 30 hits even in google books. All three listed albums of the band have their wikipedia articles. And at least one of the albums was reissued in 2003 by Polskie Radio. Muslim lo Juheu ( talk) 03:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
PS. The nomination contains false statement "without any reflection of meeting A7 prod criteria". I followed the instructions as stated in the big deletion banner and explained why A7 is invalid in my edit summary. I would ask colleague Epeefleche to be more respectful to colleagues when describing their actions. Muslim lo Juheu ( talk) 04:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The reason given in the PROD removal was "this was not a garage or student dorm band. This was a support band of a Polish celebrity, with released albums in 1970s". Being a non-garage-band and non-student-dorm band are not sufficient to pass A7. Nor is the asserted "support band of a Polish celebrity" or "released albums" sufficient. If those are what Muslim to Juheu relies on, they fall short of what we need.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 15:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I note that since Muslim's "keep !vote", he has below written "Makes sense" to a merge proposal (perhaps that reflects a change in his !vote from keep to merge?), has merged the brief content into that article, and has (perhaps technically, if we are to be bureaucratic, a bit prematurely) merged the articles. A merge is fine with me as well, for the record.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Satisfies WP:BAND 1 [7] (some of the gbooks hits provided by Muslim lo Juheu are to the eponymous album rather than the group per se but still), probably 2 (for [8]), 5 if you count the posthumous album of a live recording [9], and definitely 6. For 6 there's obviously Niemen himself (think a Polish Bob Dylan or something), but also Piotr Dziemski [10], and Jan Błędowsk [11] were/are independently notable (as jazz musicians). The only thing is that I think the article title should probably be moved to Niemen Aerolit (band). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Marek, "Niemen Aerolit" is album. The musical group was called "Aerolit". In fact, I am not sure that the album was actually originally named "Niemen Aerolit". It is just written so on the album cover, which may as well be read as "Niemen. Aerolit." It does read in English as "Niemen's Aerolit", but I am sure you know that in Polish "Niemen Aerolit" is an extragrammatical collocation ("Niemen's aerolit" would be "aerolit Niemena"). Muslim lo Juheu ( talk) 15:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I have seen both the group and the album referred to as "Niemen Aerolit", sometimes "Niemen-Aerolit". I'm not 100% sure what is the best title for article on the band. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Czesław Niemen. No indication the band are notable independently of him, with all their albums also in his discography. If its members are independently notable then they should have their own articles.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 09:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I agree that the band is hardly notable independently of Niemen, but the subject is clearly separable from the article about Niemen per se. And wikipedia is not paper or book encyclopedia, so that we may split articles into reasonable pieces. Muslim lo Juheu ( talk) 15:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Splits are usually only needed when an article is too long, and Niemen's article is far from that. In particular the band is not mentioned at all in the article; adding the information would improve it and make it more likely to be read. The current article then becomes a redirect to where all the information can be found.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 15:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Makes sense. I didn't pay attention that the en: Niemen article was neglected. Muslim lo Juheu ( talk) 17:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Merged into a new, more general, section Czeslaw Niemen#Niemen's support bands. Muslim lo Juheu ( talk) 17:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 15:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Asian Medical Institute, Kyrgyzstan

Asian Medical Institute, Kyrgyzstan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced for years. Not notable: I can't find any reliable secondary sources about the subject in google, there's no mention about it in news, books, google scholar. Article claims that it is in "the W.H.O list of recognized Medical Institutions", but it isn't, which brings into doubt the article's factual accuracy. X7q ( talk) 19:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 12:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 12:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 12:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No reliably-sourced verification that this entity exists. Not on WHO list dated 2007 (contrary to claim in article). Not in this online directory of medical schools. Not mentioned in this 2009 report about health systems in the country (the report does mention other medical training institutions in the country). -- Orlady ( talk) 14:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - medical schools are notable and it is indeed listed in the notable directory Avicenna Directories, here (put 'Asian Medical Institute' in the search box and scroll down to 'Kyrgyzstan'. The Institute's website is here. I can't, obviously, rule out that this is some form of elaborate hoax but at present it does indeed seem genuine, particularly in the light of this. TerriersFan ( talk) 01:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • It is not notable per wikipedia notability guidelines. The directory you mention only contains contact information about this school, which is trivial information and does not establish notability. -- X7q ( talk) 01:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • WP:ORG says "If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There are no such sources in the article, therefore delete. -- X7q ( talk) 01:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Well, for starters your implication that this is a hoax looks ill-founded. Secondly, medical schools that award degrees have long been considered notable. Of course the page needs sources but that may require research in regional sources. To avoid systemic bias we must not assume that the absence of Google sources in English equate to no sources existing. We don't delete articles that don't yet have reliable sources; the ones we delete are those which are unlikely to have such sources. Where, as here, the page is on a notable subject we tag for improvement. This is the way we develop the encyclopaedia. TerriersFan ( talk) 01:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Congrats to TerriersFan for finding that source. I continue to be very skeptical about the existence of this institution, notwithstanding its listing in one ostensibly reliable directory. I would not call it a hoax, but I still think it may be a scam. I must confess that I was skeptical about the idea that one of the world's poorest and most unstable countries is the site of a first-class English-language medical school catering exclusively to foreigners, but I have found evidence that some of the other medical schools in the country are catering to foreigners, primarily from Kashmir. However, if this school was established in 2004 (as claimed) and has all the approvals it lists, why isn't it listed in the 2007 WHO directory, which lists four other medical schools in Kyrgyzstan and includes text that says "Update through 31 December 2007 - The Government of the Kyrgyz Republic has asked WHO to list the following medical school: Osh State University Medical Institute"? This 2009 report about some serious public health challenges facing Kyrgyzstan includes mention of Kyrgyz State Medical Academy and the Kyrgyz State Medical Institute of Post‐Graduate Training and Continuous Education, which are two of the four schools on the 2007 WHO list and the only two schools on the Institute for International Medical Education list. The source linked on the Asian Medical Institute website as evidence of Kyrgyz government recognition is a page on http://www.university-directory.eu, which is not a reliable source -- and most definitely is not a Kyrgyz government source. The listing in the Avicenna directory cannot be discounted, but the Avicenna directory does not identify the source of the information, and I think it is possible that the Avicenna people have been scammed. -- Orlady ( talk) 02:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • keep now adequately sourced. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant talk 22:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete as spam(?) original creator at the time inserted links to the Asian Medical Institute into many irrelevant articles [12] for example; Football Federation of Kyrgyz Republic & Postage stamps and postal history of Kyrgyzstan either way if the WHO don't seem to know about it and there are no media sources (let alone reliable ones) it fails WP:GNG existence (does it?) whether a medical school or not does not infer notability WP:NRVE. wintonian talk 03:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - it is certainly not spam in it present form since it simply states the facts. The WHO do know about it; it is just that their directory has been taken over by the University of Copenhagen. TerriersFan ( talk) 14:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Harden, New South Wales. I'm extrapolating slightly in that there is a meta consensus that being listed doesn't confer notability so the arguments suggesting a redirect are the most policy based and also work with the general way that we handle barely notable/perma-stubs in an appropriatly aggregated location Spartaz Humbug! 15:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Beggan Beggan, New South Wales

Beggan Beggan, New South Wales (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Beggan Beggan is an unbounded locality within the bounded locality of Harden, New South Wales about which there is nothing to say beyond the current stub. A redirect to Harden will suffice. Crusoe8181 ( talk) 11:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope ( talk) 12:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SK#1: "nominator...fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Colonel Warden ( talk) 06:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete 1 gnews hit back in 1887, [13]. LibStar ( talk) 02:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, verifiable, real place. Additionally, the "Beggan Beggan Homestead and Group buildings" are on the heritage register ( [14]), so there's room for further expansion. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 04:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC). reply
Comment (by nominator) as mentioned in the nomination it does exist but is an unbounded locality within the bounded locality of Harden, New South Wales about which there is nothing to say. If anyone feels there is an article needed about Beggan Beggan Homestead and Group buildings (not a locality) then it may (in the fullness of time) be created as such Crusoe8181 ( talk) 11:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC). reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant talk 22:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Nothing of note there, hardly any Google hits and part of Harden. It's rather difficult to see how this article could be expanded beyond a single sentence. -- wintonian talk 03:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. per Lankiveil and the provided source.-- Pink Bull 14:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Christian Vitters

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

This person does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. He did not play at the highest level of his sport (he was a minor league, not a major league, baseball player), and does not seem to have achieved notability as an actor or as a model either. I searched for reliable independent sources but did not find them, and the sources in the article are mostly press releases. Prod removed by creator. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 21:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Delete Per nom. Likely a conflict of interest account, with no evidence of notability in any of the careers mentioned. 99.12.243.70 ( talk) 21:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete. Good catch! Looks like WP:AUTO and WP:SPAM from a WP:SPA. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:ATHLETE. To have failed first as an athlete, then as an actor, then as a model does not confer notability. Qworty ( talk) 00:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 00:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Odaine Démar

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league, therefore failing WP:NSPORT. No reason was given for contesting Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 00:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Ján Andráš

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

Non-notable football coach. Not mentioned in any reliable secondary sources that I can find. The "Teams managed" information lists him as having managed nothing more significant than a high school football team. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series

AfDs for this article:
CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional weapon - fails WP:GNG as no significant third party coverage in reliable sources. Content cannot be merged as the list of weapons in the series was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons. Anthem of joy ( talk) 20:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The fictional weapon does not meet the general notability guideline, it is a plot-only description of a fictional work and the article is unreferenced so there is no verifiability to presume that anything is worth keeping. Jfgslo ( talk) 15:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG no reliable sources, most hits on Yahoo are Wiki type projects. Also there is no real world aspect as described in WP:FICT. -- wintonian talk 04:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Can't find any non-trivial reliable source coverage. Probably better suited for a Wikia project. Qrsdogg ( talk) 16:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No outside coverage, no notability, the article does not have any references and it should not be on wikipedia, a fan site maybe but not here if it can not meet the guidelines. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. WP:NOT mentions the idea of weapons lists in terms of games, but it really is good advice for all toys and fiction. In general, these end up being WP:DIRECTORY style databases with very little context, and tend to run afoul of the same issue as WP:NOTPLOT. The spirit of policy calls for deleting this material, as does previous consensus at similar AFDs (see above). But if this is disputed, it might be worth further clarification (and discussion if necessary) at WP:NOT. Shooterwalker ( talk) 01:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. There is a consensus below that the sources available are sufficient to support an article. Eluchil404 ( talk) 06:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Erasmus Darwin Barlow

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

Although the person lived and his life was documented the article does not assert his notability. Most of the information is about his relations, and the rest about his professional associations. There is nothing about what he did in his life to make him worthy of an encyclopedia article. BigJim707 ( talk) 19:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per multiple Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria, specifically no.3 ("The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)") as FZS, no. 6 ("The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.") Secretary of ZSL, no. 7 ("The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.") vice chairman of the Mental Health Research Fund, chairman of Cambridge Instrument Co Ltd. Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 20:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep obviously. This is another stupid nomination of a perfectly fine article. I do not see why someone who happens to have notable relatives needs to have additional notability in order to fulfil you liberal idealism that someone can only gain notability through their own actions. But of course, the article is going to mention the relatives! But look, he was a Fellow of both the Zoological Society of London AND the Royal College of Psychiatrists. There is an article on each and every one of the other secretaries of the Zoological Society of London; secretary is a pretty significant position within that organisation. Furthermore, the WP:GNG (and WP:RS for that matter) is satisfied by an obituary in the BMJ. I'd hardly think that the BMJ - that is the journal of the British Medical Association, which is read by probably most of the physicians in the country, and many outside, would publish an obituary of someone that they did not consider to have contributed to medicine. Have you read the BMJ article? If not, how can you assert via the liberal use of innuendo that he has no significance? He also appears, btw, in Who's Who in Finance and Industry (1963 edn) (and I strongly suspect if you look at a copy of Debrett's from the same period, you'll find him there too, not that looking things up a common past-time amongst Wikipedia hacks). Flying Fische ( talk) 20:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There is not one word about anything Barlow may have contributed to any academic field. Google scholar throws up nothing of significance [15]. The genealogical material is irrelevant, since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The rest of the article reads like a CV, with much of it in fact being nothing more than a WP:COPYVIO from the BMJ obituary [16]. For Wikipedia purposes, notability is supposed to be indicated by a wealth of WP:RS, not just a reference or two to establish a tenuous toehold for WP:PROF. Where is the WP:RS for his scholarly contributions that should have been accumulating throughout his lifetime? Instead of that wealth of information, the only thing we have is his obituary--in other words, he made no impact at all apart from dying. Certainly the intent and spirit of WP:N and WP:BIO are that notability is a result of a lifetime of accomplishments that have been noted consistently through WP:RS--and not simply an occasion for a wikilawerying toehold for having "satisfied" one of a dozen requirements for WP:PROF. Finally, it should be noted that the notability standards of Wikipedia are not the same as what might pass for notability or significance in the outside world. For instance, the world might consider him notable for being a descendant of Charles Darwin. But it takes a lot more than that to satisfy WP guidelines. Qworty ( talk) 21:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria states "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable" and I note that he meets three. This is not Wikilawyering, this is a clear application of a clear guideline. If you disagree with the guideline, get a consensus to overturn it. Oh, and no-one is suggesting that he is "notable for being a descendant of Charles Darwin", so why bring it up? Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 21:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The guideline you yourself cite clearly states "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, AS SUBSTANTIATED THROUGH RELIABLE SOURCES" (emphasis mine). Where are the WP:RS substantiating notability here? And please note that sources is a plural. Qworty ( talk) 21:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
user:Qworty has basically been going around trying to get me permablocked, and delete any valid contributions for no apparent reason. Perhaps he should try doing something useful for a change. Flying Fische ( talk) 22:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
An obituary in the British Medical Journal is a reliable source. The ZSL is a reliable source for its own activities. The Spectator is a reliable source. Plural. Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 06:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: fails WP:PROF criteria #3 ( Category:Fellows of the Zoological Society of London does not demonstrate that organisation is "highly selective", at least in terms of zoological contribution -- selectivity on social standing may be another issue, also it appears to be a charitable/conservation society, rather than an principally-academic one), #6 (was only the secretary of the ZSC, not the president, and it's charitable-not-academic, per above) #7 (appointments are not contributions -- and those listed are generally more administrative than research-orientated). Also fails 'General notes': "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." I would further note that the article fails to articulate any specific contribution to either psychiatry or zoology. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 01:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Being charitable is a legal status perfectly compatible with being academic or scholarly. The ZSL is a scientific research organisation as well, through its division The Institute of Zoology. The Secretary is effectively the CEO of the organisation, he doesn't just open the post. Why on earth do you think social standing is the criterion for Fellowship? Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 06:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The Zoological Society of London (sometimes known by the abbreviation ZSL) is a charity devoted to the worldwide conservation of animals and their habitats.

—  Zoological Society of London
It is primarily a conservation charity NOT a scholarly society. That it has a research division DOES NOT make it "a scientific research organisation". Most national governments also have scientific research organisations -- but that does not make national governments a scientific research organisation themselves. Peruse Category:Fellows of the Zoological Society of London. ("Why on earth" would you ask such a stupid question without having done so?) It is absolutely littered with titled gentlemen of little scientific prominence. No, the president of a club or company is the CEO, the club or company secretary is concerned with administrative/procedural/regulatory compliance, not club/company direction. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Funnily enough I did peruse Category:Fellows of the Zoological Society of London, and it is uncivil of you to assume that I had not, and to call me stupid for not, as you wrongly guessed, having done so. The "litter" of titled gentlemen consists of
So here we have 9 out of 101 titled, two BLP whom I won't discuss, one with no recorded scientific contribution, four with some scientific credibility and one actually ennobled for services to science. Please do not assume that having a title makes it impossible to also be a scientist.
Now let's turn to the nature of ZSL. That it has a research division makes it an organisation that engages in scientific research: "Our scientists in the laboratory and field, animal management teams at both zoos and our veterinarians contribute wide-ranging skills and experience to both practical conservation and the scientific research that underpins this work." "ZSL's Institute of Zoology offers research training through PhD studentships, and hosts undergraduate and masters level research projects conducted as part of our own MSc courses and courses at other institutions." "Lord Zuckerman, then Secretary of ZSL, raised funds from two medical foundations to found laboratories where scientists would be employed by ZSL and undertake research." "The Institute of Zoology is a world renowned research centre working at the cutting edge of conservation biology, specialising in scientific issues relevant to preserving animal species and their habitats."
Finally, the secretary. From the Independent's obituary of Sir Barry Cross, Secretary 1988-1992: The post of secretary is honorary and under the society's constitution carries the responsibility for the day-to-day management of the society's affairs. It is in effect the chief executive post without either the remuneration or the trappings of high office to go with it.
You may wish to reconsider some of your remarks above. Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 17:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
(i) Bedford: conservation NOT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (my whole point above), Grey: ornothology was only a hobby, and the (rather thin) material on that aspect of his life (which makes no mention of serious scientific research) is wholly unsourced -- I would therefore take the 'distinction' with a touch of salt, Powys: again no indication of significant scientific research (just a large aviary, and some books of drawings), Fiennes-Clinton: no scientific involvement mentioned, McAlpine: no scientific involvement mentioned, Peyton: no scientific involvement mentioned, Hay: collected specimens & and a book privately published, but again no indication of significant scientific research, Wigram: no scientific involvement mentioned.
(ii)You are making a wholly illogical claim: that Y possesses X does not make Y X. That I possess two hands does not make me a hand. That the US Government possesses an army does not make it an army. And so it follows that the ZSL possesses a division that happens to be a "scientific research organisation" DOES NOT MAKE THE ZSL ITSELF' a "scientific research organisation".
(iii) The description of secretary you have given would appear to equate to Chief operating officer, who typically reports to the CEO. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The issue about Fellows is moot, as it appears I was wrong about that status.
The issue about conservation: the ZSL's own words quoted above make it clear that as an organisation it regards itself as doing scientific research as an integral part of its mission.
The issue about Secretary: I have provided a reliable source which supports my exact words.
I don't see what more I can say. Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 06:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I was asked on my talk page by User:Flying Fische to have a look at this article. I wouldn't normally respond to a note like this, but this is the sort of article and AfD I would work on if I had happened to notice it, so I am going to take a look at this, while disclosing here the reason I became aware of the article and the deletion discussion. Carcharoth ( talk) 21:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Having now looked at this, my thoughts so far are:
    (1) The two main notable aspects (so far) are having an obituary published in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) and being Secretary of the Zoological Society of London (this is, as Sergeant Cribb points out, one of the main positions at the ZSL, the other being President). Having said that, he doesn't have an entry in "Who was Who", so he isn't that notable.
    (2) The article does need a bit of rewriting to move away from the language used in the BMJ obituary and to reduce the reliance on genealogical material from Burke's. Though repeating the same facts as presented in those two sources will be unavoidable to some extent, some more rephrasing would be best here, as well as bringing in some other sources. The phrase "enthusiastic founding member" in particular is something that needs to be put in quotation marks.
    (3) There are some more sources if you search Google Scholar and Google Books carefully, but not too much there. It would help to locate another obituary if any others were published. I did find his marriage mentioned in The Times (The Times, Friday, Apr 08, 1938; pg. 19; Issue 47964; col C), plus a radio programme called 'The Dangers of Health' that he presented in 1956 (The Times, Saturday, Aug 11, 1956; pg. 4; Issue 53607; col D). The Times also mentions a couple of the companies he was involved with, such as the engineering company George Kent and Dataprep (The Times, Thursday, Sep 04, 1969; pg. 18; Issue 57656; col F). There is also a picture of Erasmus Barlow in a fairly long article about the takeover of Cambridge Scientific Instrument Company in 1968 (The Times, Friday, Jun 21, 1968; pg. 29; Issue 57283; col D). It seems this Erasmus Darwin was also Master (in around 1976-77) of the Worshipful Company of Scientific Instrument Makers, one of those guilds you get in London that holds dinners (The Times, Saturday, Jun 04, 1977; pg. 16; Issue 60021; col D). There is also an article in The Times that says it was one Erasmus Barlow (consultant psychiatrist at St Thomas' Hospital, London) who examined Harold Challenor and gave evidence about his condition at the Challenor Inquiry (The Times, Wednesday, Oct 28, 1964; pg. 7; Issue 56154; col D). He also gave a lecture at the Royal Institute of Philosophy on 12 February 1958 titled 'The Validity of Hallucinations' (The Times, Wednesday, Feb 12, 1958; pg. 9; Issue 54073; col A). There are also some hits on PubMed, and another picture of him in Medical science and technology at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School: the first 50 years, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL VOLUME 291 21-28 DECEMBER 1985, pp.1771-1779. The picture is figure 5 on page 1773 and is from 1945. All a bit scattered, but my view is that the existence of at least one obituary is sufficient to justify bringing the disparate threads together (if there was no obituary, that would be a different story).
  • So as I said, all in all, I think there is enough here for an article. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think I need to withdraw my argument based on FZSL. Neither Hrafn nor I seem to have spotted this page which suggests that Fellowship is not as prestigious as I has thought. My comments on the position of Secretary stand. So, we may be down to two of the criteria for notability. Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 21:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Since you are withdrawing your argument, please place strike-out print over the text, so that we'll know exactly which comments you are withdrawing. Thank you. Qworty ( talk) 22:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. I'm having difficulty finding good sources about him other than the BMJ obit, but I think that one may be enough by itself. Most of the argument above seems to boil down to "he doesn't pass this one special case, therefore he's not notable" which is obviously not good logic. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Article asserts notability, a number of important associations, and individual notability looks reasonably solid. JFW |  T@lk 21:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Obits suffice. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC). reply
  • Keep, passes WP:GNG per Carcharoth's recap of the sources. The encyclopedia is better with this information than without it.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 03:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep BMJ obituary and a fellow of some well renowned organisations, although the article could do with some detail on his research papers. -- wintonian talk 04:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Carcharoth. Qrsdogg ( talk) 16:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 15:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

List of Miss Supranational titleholders

List of Miss Supranational titleholders (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ordinarily, I would have no problem with a lengthy pageant titleholders list being given its own article to save space in the main pageant article, but this pageant has only two winners so far, the list adds no further detail (the graph is simply copy and pasted from the main article), and both this page and the main page have no reliable 3rd party sources to demonstrate notability to begin with.  Mbinebri  talk ← 19:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Completely redundant to the main article. -- Whpq ( talk) 14:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hassanal Abdullah

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

After I've encountered to this article several questions strikes in my mind:

  • Is Hassanal Abdullah a really notable poet acc. to WP:BIO ?
  • It is a BLP. Do it meet WP:BLP ?
  • Are the sources cited are reliable and evident enough for this article to be kept?

Answer of none are positive to me. Thus, I have to ask, why this page shall not be deleted?
Some notes

  • The only additive editor on this article is Aqute31
  • Only contributions of Aqute31 in Wikipedia is on this article or about Hassanal Abdullah.
  • Aqute31 offended almost all other editors' efforts and ironically defined some constructive efforts as vandalism
  • Newly involved editor on the same matter is Auronee. His/her POV strangely co-insides with Aqute31's
  • Whenever maintenance tags are placed on the article, they are removed.
  • This article has not been brought into attention of WP:BENGAL » nafSadh did say 18:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Ask yourself whether you are motivated to propose this deletion by your own understanding or just trying to help your friend ragib, who previously managed to delete an article on the subject.
Some of the questions you asked do not even make sense. There are more than 30 references here and I am sure you can find thousand references about the poet elsewhere. So, there is no question of nobility or reference or even "vandalism". You might be able to delete things, but it is hard to create one.-- Shabda2009 ( talk) 20:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • delete: no evidence of notability William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I looked through the huge list of references and they are mostly useless for establishing notability. The only item that contributes towards establishing notability is the VOA item. -- Whpq ( talk) 14:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Ben Enoch

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

Non-notable per Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Golf

  • Delete - notable only for his early death. Tewapack ( talk) 19:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. — EJBH ( talk) 18:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect. I have implemented the redirect to Glossary_on_fencing#Blade_Work as Kaligelos suggests but it may be retargeted if there is a consensus to do do. Eluchil404 ( talk) 07:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Touché

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

Simply a dictionary definition of the term (dicdef). It's covered perfectly well at wiktionary and Fencing#Terminology, it's currently a content fork. Encyclopedia articles are not supposed to define a term two different ways, and it does this because it's not encyclopedic. Even if it only defined it in one way it's still only a dictionary definition of the term. In an encyclopedia like Wikipedia we, wherever possible, merge terminology into the main topic because it puts the term into full context, which makes it more coherent and useful. Rememberway ( talk) 18:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm calling for MERGE to fencing or outright DELETE. Rememberway ( talk) 20:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Oddly, the nominator has never edited a fencing article before now; indeed, he has been arguing, to no particular effect, that our titles must use only nouns, sufficiently so to revert-war the policy page. This article came up as an example, and he is now attempting to merge or delete the evidence against his fringe view. Speedy close as frivolous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that this can be speedily closed. Even if we agree that there's no need for an article with this title--about which I'm agnostic--we'd still have to put in a redirect to Fencing#Terminology because it's a plausible search term. Thus there is no prospect of making this into a redlink, and the nomination fails WP:BEFORE.— S Marshall T/ C 20:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
With all due respect, I already user merged it, but Pmanderson unmerged it again. Rememberway ( talk) 20:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The merger cost the encyclopedia information, to no point; but that is for discussion on its talk page; this is not a solution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
And merge is a perfectly respectable result in AFDs anyway. Rememberway ( talk) 20:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
It's a result of Keep, since admins don't have to do anything. Should this nomination also be closed as withdrawn? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
No, it's a result of MERGE, but then again you didn't know you weren't supposed to blank AFD tags, and accuse people of 'vandalism' in the subject line, so I guess I that's par for your course. Rememberway ( talk) 21:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

4 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Fencing#Terminology. Other than the one-line non-fencing use of the term, which truly is Wiktionary material, everything here is already there. This probably meets speedy keep criterion 1 on a literal reading (as the nominator does not desire deletion), and I'm often a pretty big advocate for closing these things out early when possible. However, since at least one past redirection was reverted, there's probably no harm done in employing this venue to judge consensus, since it's already here. Serpent's Choice ( talk) 21:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Fencing#Terminology per Serpent's Choice. And yes, merge is indeed a normal outcome at AfD. And yes, a WP:MERGE proposal process does exist to gather consensus over controversial merges - frankieMR ( talk) 23:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - Leaning towards Redirect... The term is commonly used beyond just fencing circles (although those usages derive from fencing). I think there is at least the potential for expansion as a stand alone topic for an article. Blueboar ( talk) 01:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but merge to Fencing#Terminology. The concept warrants a pointer to the fencing article where it's discussed. However, there's nothing further needed about the use of the word. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - This is probably the first French word I ever learned via endless reruns of Touché, Pussy Cat!, but I don't think a laundry list of "in popular culture" references would make for a very good article. Tarc ( talk) 13:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I agree we don't want a "laundry list"... but adding a few well selected and notable examples would improve the article. Blueboar ( talk) 03:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Merge is a reasonable solution: I see no way the article may grow beyond dicdef. Kaligelos ( talk) 17:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • COMMENT: In fact I've just found a proper target of merge/redirect: Glossary on fencing and performed the merge. Kaligelos ( talk) 00:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Bryan Kreutz

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

WP:NOTABILITY; Sources are all databases, self-created pages, and pages from his employers. Google search brings up same kind of sources, nothing denoting notability. Nat Gertler ( talk) 18:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTABILITY; An additional News category Press release source has been found to verify the Validity and notability of this Article to remain on wikipedia. See http://www.pr.com/press-release/204624 Bryankreutz 77 ( talk) 23:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC) User talk:Bryankreutz 77) 23:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

A press release is generally not considered to denote notability. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 02:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTABILITY; Two additional references added one is a newspaper article on Bryan Kreutz Childhood in St.Louis, the second is on the existence of Rescued Nation TV. Contesting Deletion for Page Bryan Kreutz I highly recommend this page be kept. I came on here to find information on the St.Louis born Directors and Producers, this page has been useful. Cleanup it needs, deletion it doesn't. There have been multiple news article references supporting the person and the St.Louis event inspired TV show Rescued Nation that he directs/produces/writes for. Bryankreutz 77 ( talk) 23:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC) User talk:Bryankreutz 77) 10:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Unless you're claiming that it was notable that Kreutz had a bicycle decades ago, the mere mention of his name in an article doesn't contribute to significant notability. The existence of Rescued Nation TV is not in question, but even if the show was notable, that does not make Kretuz notable; notability is not inherited. As for referring to Kreutz as "he", either you are Bryan Kreutz, born in 1977, in which case the proper term is "I" and you should admit that your work on this is promotional; or you're not him, in which case you should review the Wikipedia policy about using someone's real name as your user name, as you're in violation of it. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTABILITY; Page has been written by another wikipedia user. Here is another additional reference added to the article titled "KJSL" at Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia with Bryan Kreutz referenced numerous times as a producer. The list of verifiable, substantive sources, and notable reference material has been contributed by multiple users to the page per the original discussion request. Unless a theme of bias is now present for deletion there is no cause for deletion to the article or references made thereunto. Bryankreutz 77 ( talk) 13:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC) User talk:Bryankreutz 77) 10:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Do not use articles from Wikipedia or from websites that mirror its content as sources. You have been unable to provide reliable sources indicating your notability. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 19:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTABILITY;This article is not an autobiography it was written by me Momtvproducer and has another reliable reference in the acceptable category for graduate at his College broadcast center. (see reference 1 on the Bryan Kreutz article) For example the wikipedia article page titled "Eric Kripke" has only 3 references 1 is an alumni reference website which is the same as Bryan Kreutz's reference to his alumni at Broadcast Center college. Eric Kripke has only one external link which is identical to the imdb.com link for Bryan Kreutz. The article has sufficient references in comparison to other articles in the same Director/Producer/Writer category of articles. User:Momtvproducer ( talk) 10:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC) — Momtvproducer ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Eric Kripke satisfied a range of notability criteria at WP:FILMMAKER which there is no evidence that Kreutz approaches. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Sources are as follows: Self published sources, Primary source interview, Wikipedia page, Social website bio, and a press release. None of the sources are reliable sources. Seems like a self-published auto biography.--v/r - T P 15:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: little-to-no evidence of independent sourcing. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Non-notable at this point in his career; the only sources found are self-provided (e.g. IMDB). The article's claims seem unrealistic and overblown; for example he lists himself as a "writer" for Revolution 618 even though it is a talk show. There is even a link at the bottom of the page for Bryan Kreutz! Nothing about his career was found at Google News Archive - just the unrelated story about an incident in his childhood. I note there is a Wikipedia article for the TV program Revolution 618, but in a quick glance I seriously doubt if that program is notable either. It seems to have aired only on local cable. Somebody might want to take a look at that as well. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

English Shieldwall

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

Non-notable subject. Article cites no reliable secondary sources. Unable to find sources to improve the article. NotFromUtrecht ( talk) 18:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. No third party reliable sources found. In the absence of such this group fails WP:V and WP:N. RichardOSmith ( talk) 18:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ( talk) 19:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Directional Michigan

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

The article has had two previous AFDs, where no-consensus was reached for both. It is not an encyclopedic term, which is a neologism and is not notable. The references given all talk about uses OF the term, not articles ABOUT the term. If you remove all the references from the article (which are just uses of the term), then all you have is an article that says, "Directional Michigan is made up of CMU, EMU and WMU". The rest of the article as it currently exists is a mixture of Wikipedia:original research and Wikipedia:synthesis. — X96lee15 ( talk) 18:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Convert to disambiguation. 'Nuff said. De Fault Ryan 19:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
If this is to be retained as a non-article -- and I'm not suggesting that it should be! -- I think a redirect to Michigan MAC Trophy might be better than a disambiguation. cmadler ( talk) 20:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Disambiguation cannot be used to circumvent WP:NEO. Per discussion at Wikiproject Disambiguation, decomposing a set of items in a group is not appropriate for a disambiguation page. We wouldn't have a disambiguation page saying "United States of America refers to Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, ...". A disambiguation page identifies different topics that can be referred to by the same name, like multiple "Joe Smiths". — Bagumba ( talk) 20:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is a non-encyclopedic term used to disparage CMU, EMU and WMU and their respective sports programs. Simply because the term exists, does not mean that it should be included in an encyclopedia, nor should it be included as a redirect or disambiguation page. It's kind of funny if you attended the University of Michigan or Michigan State, I suppose, not so much if you attended one of these so-called "directional" schools. By way of example, some southeastern college football fans still think it's cute to refer to the University of Florida as "FU" (get it? "f---, you!"), and you can find internet references to "FU." Does that mean that "FU" deserves its own Wikipedia article? Clearly not. If this article were a BLP, this would not even be a close call. Wikipedia is not a fan blog, and it should not provide a platform for the fans of one college sports program to mock the sports program and fans of other universities. Let's show some dignity, and DELETE this article. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 19:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Response this isn't a bunch of fans coming up with something, although many fans do use the term. This is a term used by major sports media outlets. And I disagree that the term is used to disparge any schools or their sports programs. There is no mocking being done in this article and I think you are reading much, much more into it than is there.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Reply to Paul Paul, as one of the Project's biggest proponents of articles about the mid-majors, FCS, Division II and Division III football subjects, I am really quite surprised that you would fight so hard to keep this crappy article. This term itself serves no purpose but to distinguish between UM, MSU (the so-called "name schools") and CMU, EMU and WMU (the so-called "directional schools"), and subordinate the latter universities and their sports programs to the former. As for the article, you can put lipstick on the pig and dress it up with neutral language and citations to a certain ESPN "bottom ten" column and the occasional SI reference, but sadly it will always be a pig. And, frankly, it is an embarrassingly ugly pig to have in our front yard. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • You don't like it check. Got it. I figured that out. That's not a reason to delete.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • But what reason is there to keep? If you can find one source that doesn't just use this term, but actually discusses its history/origin/etc., I'll gladly switch to keep. Nolelover It's almost football season! 14:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Asked and answered the reasons to keep are simple: it is a notable term, widely used among various sports media outlets nationally, regionally, and locally. In virtually every article that uses the term, it defines the term in the context of the article. The term has been used for many years and is not just a "catch-phrase-of-the-month" and has been adopted by sportswriters and fans alike.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 12:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • See below post. I realize its not just a "catch-phrase", which is why I don't really think WP:NEO applies. Still, Fo' shizzle has also been used by many years by even more people - look at the article. Nolelover It's almost football season! 14:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I was looking for another word that has also been used for many years, has been adopted by many, isn't a catch-phrase, but the article is just a soft redirect to Wiktionary. There are better examples, but that was that best I could think of off the top of my head. Nolelover It's almost football season! 21:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Reply to Nolelover Greetings, NL. I haven't bumped into you before on the Project, and I assume that your comments are intended in good faith. Let's look at another example closer to your heart: "Free Shoes University." The term was certainly intended to disparage the FSU program, but it was more than just a smart-ass comment—it was an actual tempest in a teapot scandal in Tallahassee with a real history for which a rival coach provided a name. It was a very real and still notable event. There will literally be hundreds of reliable references to the term on the internet and Google News Archive, many of them with an explanation of the underlying scandal and the involved parties and the NCAA sanctions that followed (far better articles than any cited so far for "Directional Michigan"). Do we, as WikiProject College Football, really want to encourage the creation of such articles? In addition to the arguments based WP:SYN, WP:NOTDIC, and WP:NEO, I am also making a plea for the dignity and neutrality of WP College Football. Every university and its sports program deserves to be treated with respect, and not have neutral-sounding articles written about its various nicknames. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Follow-up Comment to NL FYI, I just discovered that some smart-ass created a "Free Shoes University" redirect to the main FSU article in 2006. If you file an AfD for the redirect, I will gladly support it. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 22:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Heh, I know the whole "Free Shoes" scandal story, and I understand your point. Here's the thing; I do support a Free Shoes redirect to FSU. A redirect going to the article on the actual scandal would be better, but I'm sure there is some clueless individual who will hear and search that term. I think the same way about this article *Note that i !voted redirect before delete*. Obviously, I live in the southeast where it isn't used, but from what I saw, it isn't really a derogative term. TBH, I've noticed the western-central-eastern connection, and I wouldn't think it puts them down to group them by the name of their respective universities. If you find anything using this term explaining that this term is used as a put-down....well, come to think of it, that would probably be enough to save the article in my mind :). Nolelover It's almost football season! 22:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — X96lee15 ( talk) 19:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — X96lee15 ( talk) 19:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - As I wrote in the previous AfD, Show me something that has been written about "Directional Michigan", not just places where the term has been used, and I'll reconsider. All we have are uses of the term, which might be fine in a dictionary -- but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. cmadler ( talk) 20:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This is a term in wide use by sportswriters as illustrated by the article's references to numerous reliable sources (Sports Illustrated, ESPN, NBC, and several newspapers), and not merely opposing fans (as may be the case for tu for Texas, etc.). I also think the article goes beyond a dictionary definition. The article's treatment of the subject also appears to me as neutral and straightforward. Strikehold ( talk) 21:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per WP:NOTNEO, "articles on neologisms are commonly deleted ... To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." The sources found for this article simply use the term and do not explain its origins or significance of the term. Also, while ESPN is frequently cited as a source for usage of the term, WP:GNG expects multiple sources to establish notability. However, ESPN should be treated as a single source, as WP:GNG says "multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." In any event, ESPN only uses the term and does not talk about the term. Per WP:NOTNEO suggestion, this should be added to Wiktionary unless multiple sources about the term are identified. — Bagumba ( talk) 21:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary — Bagumba ( talk) 22:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic content. Usage of a term is dictionary territory. Article doesn't go beyond that, and never could. Rememberway ( talk) 22:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The ESPN "mentions" are part of a column which pretty much exists to make fun of the teams with the worst records in college football and shouldn't be taken seriously in the least. Some of the links are dead and some of them just describe "Team A travels close to home to take on Team B". I've never heard this term at all and the term sounds...I would say too 'intelligent' to be taken seriously as a rivalry name as it sounds like something come up more by a math geek than actual fans. Nate • ( chatter) 00:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think that it's a negative term, but if it were that would not preclude it from inclusion. Notability can arise from negative coverage.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Except that you would have to use the term "coverage" loosely. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete silliness. Neutrality talk 19:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Not just a term used by ESPN but by many other networks and additionally used by fans. Article is well sourced, references are provided. " I don't like it" and " just unencyclopedic" are not reason to delete.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per my comments at the last AfD. I hadn't heard of the term before then, but was surprised to learn how widespread its use can be found. I just don't see how the project is improved by deletion of this. Is it a bit silly? Yes. But 90% of life is silly.-- Milowent • talk blp-r 20:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict) Redirect to Michigan MAC Trophy Upon further thought, I think that making this page a disambiguation page would work best, otherwise delete -- I looked through all the sources (and did a bit of research on my own), and, like the nom said, could find nothing about the term, and only uses of it. This is classic WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The only reason I say redirect first is because it is a valid search term, and the Trophy makes the most sense. Otherwise, "wide use by sportswriters", "additional [use] by fans...[good sourcing]", and even deleting it being silly are not valid reasons to keep. I'm not sure WP:NEO applies, but I do think this could go to Wiktionary. Nolelover It's almost football season! 20:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per X96lee15's reasoning. as the term fails WP:GNG. Looking through all 19 references (two of which are links to conference websites, another two are dead links), I found that not one of them discusses the term, instead just uses it. Per WP:GNG, the sources need to "address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." However, not one of the sources actually tells the reader what the term "Directional Michigan" means and therefore most, if not all, of the article's content is original research. The bulk of the article also explains where exactly the term has been used, which is not notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Basically a WP:DICDEF. Transwikify to Wiktionary if not already done, but conceptually there's not enough here to build an adequate encyclopedia entry. As an alternate idea, one could redirect or merge this to Mid-American Conference if there's anything worth preserving. -- Jayron 32 23:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Response to Jayron Jayron, from my reading of the various "sources," the term also applies to Northern Michigan, too (not a MAC member). If we are going to do anything with this article other than delete it, I would suggest that we do a 4-way disambiguation page to CMU, EMU, WMU and NMU's sports program pages or the athletics section within the main university articles, whichever is applicable. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 23:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'd say that a lot of the material on here reads like a dictionary, but the term itself is worth keeping. Expanding mostly on the history of the term, but keep it as a WP:STUB.
Homo Logica ( talk) 23:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
If sources about the term were identified to establish notability of this neologism, it would be acceptable to leave this article to develop. However, only sources that use the term have been found, so it does not look promising that this article would ever be able to be expanded. WP:NEO says "when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." — Bagumba ( talk) 00:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Bagumba, if you had possession of not-online (or paywall-ed) Michigan newspaper articles or columns which discuss the term, would you share them with us? You michigan people (wherever you went to college) have been warring over this article for FIVE years!-- Milowent • talk blp-r 19:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I kindly ask that editors WP:AVOIDYOU and WP:AGF — Bagumba ( talk) 20:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
That's kind of brash. Is there a reason for that?-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 12:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Good question. Having dug into the history of discussions a little bit, its quite obvious to me that there are some people who are biased in favor of keeping this article and those biased in favor of deletion based on their various school allegiances. Its really ridiculous. Thus we see below the hope that continued nominations of the article will eventually lead to deletion--this is a misuse of AfD. The fact is that the term has been used in the press frequently over the past 20 years, and if it was a more innocuous term, no one would care about trying to delete the article. Instead, people want to battle over whether the press coverage is significant enough/weighty enough/whatever--which is ultimately subjective and leads to these no consensus outcomes. At a different level, the same exact thing has gone on with the Santorum (neologism), for years.-- Milowent • talk blp-r 12:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Milowent: I'm not sure why you directed your comment at me. I have not participated in previous AfDs on this subject. Also, I see no evidence to your charge that any editor here is intentionally withholding "paywall-ed" information to advance a position. Again, assume good faith. Also, all editors have their own inherent biases, but collectively, it balances out. — Bagumba ( talk) 21:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The article is obviously here just to define the term, and list where it's used, but that's not what encyclopedias do. An encyclopedia article would be all about those three college's sports teams, but actually they don't have much in common so there's nothing to write. And so you're left with just defining the term and saying how and where you use it, but that is what dictionaries are for. An encyclopedia article has to go significantly beyond being just about the term. Rememberway ( talk) 00:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - echoing my comments from the last AfD; the volume of coverage indicates that it is a notable concept, however, if deletion ends up a consensus, the page should be used as a disambiguation page. matt91486 ( talk) 16:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Without providing further explanation on your prior comments, referring to the "volume of coverage" seems like a plea to not WP:LOSE work done on this article regardless of its notability, or to keep it based merely on the number of WP:GOOGLEHITS without considering the content of those sources. However, much can be salvaged by tranwikiing to a more appropriate site, Wiktionary. — Bagumba ( talk) 17:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
If this is suitable for inclusion in Wiktionary, that might be a good solution. cmadler ( talk) 17:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I don't believe that this would pass Wiktionary's Criteria for Inclusion. bd2412 T 20:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Turning it into a disamb page would seem to be compatible with the Wikipedia's policies, it's still a delete though, the article is gone, disambiguations aren't articles, so you could immediately create it after the *A*FD if you wished. Rememberway ( talk) 17:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Is there something else called "Directional Michigan" that this usage is ambiguous with? A film or an album, perhaps? If not, then there is nothing to disambiguate. Disambiguation pages serve to distinguish between different things having the same name. Anything else is an abuse of the disambiguation tag. bd2412 T 20:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete as a neo.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Nothing has changed since the previous AFDs. We're just here again, despite having any new evidence from the previous AFDs because someone else came along and had a problem with it. There are no new arguments or reasons presented than the previous AFDs, and therefore we will likely have the same result. I can only hope that someone, before nominating for a 4th AFD, actually take the time and read the rules for AFDs, the previous AFDs, and decide that they shouldn't bother unless that have some significant new reason. MECU≈ talk 22:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Really? Nothing has changed? By my count, the tally stands 10 votes for Delete, 6 votes for Keep, and 2 votes for converting the article to disambiguation which become votes for Deleting the article if the tally does not constitute a consensus for Keeping. By my reckoning, sir, that's dangerously close to a consensus for DELETE. 173.168.183.102 ( talk) 23:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Closer Look at least 4 (if not more, depending on interpretation) of the "delete" !votes are for invalid deletion reasons, variations of "unencyclopedic" and the age-old "I don't like it" -- So that leaves at most 6 with a delete position and 6 with a keep position.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • It's not a vote Paul, it's a discussion. Further, I could argue that all 6 of the keep !votes are for "invalid" reasons, as most of them do not state any policies as backing. Some keep !votes merely state "per last AfD." Regardless of how either of us construe the consensus of this AfD, it doesn't matter. It's up to the closing admin to decide. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • of course this is not a vote. I wasn't the one who brought up counting the votes.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 00:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict) How about that it fails WP:NEO, WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:GNG? Furthermore, the first two AfDs were closed as "no consensus" so you can't say another discussion wouldn't be helpful. It's not like one or both of the previous AfDs had real consensus, otherwise this probably wouldn't be here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • If you keep listing an article you can eventually get it deleted, yes. No way this fails WP:GNG, too many references in widely-distributed publications. No way this fails WP:NOTDICTIONAY because simply put, it isn't a dictinary definition. And no way it fails WP:NEO because the term is defined in the context of multiple articles cited. History and origin could be added and over time they likely will when adequate research is completed--but there is a history, it is verifiable, and it is widely notable as an abundance of sources show. Further, Mecu is correct in that there have been no new arguments brought up in favor of deletion. There are at this moment more people making that same argument, but AFDs are not about popular vote.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 05:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • "No consensus" does not mean that there was consensus for the article to be kept in either AfD discussion, so until there is a consensus for either "keep" or "delete," there will continue to be AfDs. If the term "Directional Michigan" passes GNG, please show me an article in which the term is not just used, but "sources address the subject directly in detail". Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • WP:WABBITSEASON We obviosly disagree on this point. I believe that this requirement is more than met in the references already in the article and you do not, and neither of us stands alone on this point of contention. Hence, the "no consensus" status on the last two AFDs.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 01:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • By avoiding my request to link to an article that proves the term meets WP:GNG, you acknowledge that it does not pass it. If there are more than enough references which prove the term meets GNG as you say, you should be able to show me here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Again, asked and answered I have not avoided your request and I do not make such an acknowledgement. There are nineteen different references on the article page. Start there.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Ref 1 is not really a ref in that it just links to the MAC website. Refs 2-12 are trivial mentions that do not talk about the term, ref 13 is a dead link, ref 14 is a trivial mention that does not talk about the term, ref 15 is a dead link, refs 16-17 are trivial mentions that do not talk about the term, ref 18 is a link to the GLIAC website, and ref 19 is another trivial mention that does not talk about the term.
  • To recap, we have 15 references that only use the term but do not talk about it, two links to conference websites, and two dead links. Again, none of these references are sufficient enough for the term to pass GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I fully agree with Eagles here. I had looked through all the sources, and not one of them discusses the term itself, an obviously necessity to pass GNG, or even NOTDIC. Nolelover It's almost football season! 18:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Content of sources WP:LOTSOFSOURCES encourages discussion of the specific content of sources over just listing them. — Bagumba ( talk) 19:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Paul McDermott (footballer)

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

WP:V--Another historical Irish footballer that I can't find reliable sources for, the FAI Cup team win might make him notable, but not without verification. A common name, there's a passing reference in a 1999 Irish Times article to a player with the same name who appears to be a different player. But additional sources are welcome, as always. joe decker talk to me 16:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. -- Joaquin008 ( talk) 19:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - It should be noted that this person was active before Irish news was published widely online, so the GNG might be more difficult to establish. I have found a source (The Irish Times, not available without subscription) via ProQuest that says that he was being considered for the FAI cup final, although frustratingly, I can't verify that he did play in that final. I am not convinced that he meets the GNG, as the sources I have seen are not about him, but rather mention him in the context of the clubs he was a member of. I accept that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL, as the FAI league was probably not professional at that time. Quasihuman |  Talk 19:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Renaissance and Baroque Society of Pittsburgh

Renaissance and Baroque Society of Pittsburgh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this sounds like a great organization, the article has remained completely unsourced. I searched Google to see if I could rectify that, but I was unable to find any reliable, secondary sources on the organization to establish notabilty. Ladyof Shalott 16:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Arguably major arts organizations in Paris, London or New York are also largely reviewed by the 'local' press, given that they are static unlike arts performers. Do we have any similar articles about music promoting organizations in other cities? -- Klein zach 09:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Of course, see [17]. -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 09:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I now understand the society is mentioned in Grove Music (Ida Reed and Robert Croan. "Pittsburgh." Oxford Music Online, www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/21869.) -- Klein zach 00:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (albeit a weakish one). I've added the Grove reference + a couple more and have fleshed out the article a bit. I gather from this that if anyone wants to spend time in the archives of the 'Oral History of Music in Pittsburgh' project at the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, they could find more on the society's history. Voceditenore ( talk) 07:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article is now in a good shape and well referenced. -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 11:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Per the references that have been found, I gladly withdraw the nomination. As there have been no other calls for deletion, anyone should feel free to close this discussion. Ladyof Shalott 14:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

English conjugation tables

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

Why the page should be deleted

English conjugation tables is unreferenced Original Research, contains a very large number of mistakes, and contains no valid content that is not in the article English verbs. Duoduoduo ( talk) 16:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Detailed reasons to delete

The article is chock full of absurdities, so much so that it would certainly be impossible to salvage (and if it were salvaged, it would simply replicate the article English verbs).

  • The nonsense starts with the title itself: English conjugation tables. Almost the entire article consists of verbal constructions that are not conjugations (conjugations being morphological verb changes as in blow /blows / blew / blown / blowing).
  • The section on the verb "to have (got)" is bizarre. It mixes the "must" meaning with the present/past perfect usage, the latter of which never uses "got".
  • Section on Moods: I may be and I would be are not moods, since they are not inflectional. Probably some traditional English grammars call would be the conditional mood, but I doubt that any call may be a mood -- it's one type of modality, just like all the constructions that use modal auxiliaries.
  • The "non-finite moods" infinitive, gerund, and [past] participle are not normally called moods.
  • What the article calls tenses are actually tense-aspect constructions.
  • The number and person section is not even about verbs.
  • The conjugation tables have a thou column, even though thou does not occur in Modern English.
  • It says that, e.g., He hath been being played is an English construction, although actually such a construction never appears in the language.
  • The active conjugation tables actually say things like I might go is the simple past of I may go. That morphological relationship is of historical interest, but does not reflect the actual language as it currently exists -- the past of may go is may have gone when may means possibly; when may means have permission to, it has no past form. And anyway, may go and might go are not simple forms as asserted, as they contain two words.
  • No one is going to learn the subjunctive from the table of subjunctives, which doesn't have examples of usage.
  • There are unexlainable omissions. The were to go form, for example, is missing from the subjunctive table. Two tense-aspect combinations are missing: I would play [sometime later than that time in the past] (future of the past); and I used to play (past tense, habitual aspect).
  • The imperative section is full of absurdities. It actually says let me go is first person imperative -- actually it is second person. Etc., etc., throughout the section. And for example it actually says have gone is present perfect second person plural imperative!
  • The imperative section even gets the first person plural present wrong -- the form in Let us go is almost never used, except in stock phrases like let us pray. Let's go is correct, even in formal English.
  • The section on the auxiliary to do is all messed up. The auxiliary is do, not to do, and it has no infinitive, gerund, or participles. All the examples in the table (except for the intensive present indicative) are wrong for a section on the auxiliary -- e.g., am doing, will do, etc. have nothing to do with the auxiliary.
  • Ditto on the "auxiliary" let: everything in this section is wrong -- e.g., I let, I have let, etc., have nothing to do with the alleged auxiliary role of let.
  • The section on the modal auxiliary must says that the past tense of must is must!
  • Having a table that simply gives the past of will as would is confusing to a learner, without context.
  • In the passive section, the article says, for example, that might be played is the simple past passive. Actually it's not simple, containing three words, and it is not past (instead expressing doubtful possibility about the present or future).

Duoduoduo ( talk) 17:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Keep—it may be unreferenced, but I'm not totally convinced that English grammar is original research (although I guess it could be argued that someone made it up...) and there are plenty of learned works which could be used as sources. ╟─ Treasury Tag► high seas─╢ 17:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
English grammar is not original research -- the numerous false assertions in this article are original research, and you won't be able to find any learned works to use as sources for those assertions. Duoduoduo ( talk) 17:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This page presents a fundamentally misguided approach to English grammar and is practically useless. My (expert) view on its problems is here: Talk:English_conjugation_tables#Comment. That's what I said four years ago; my opinion hasn't changed. The page also omits to treat the important time-of-the-day distinction in the domain of prospective tense categories, which personally offends me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It could be fixed (and renamed), but I don't see the point. — kwami ( talk) 18:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The article title alone is a problem, as English is almost entirely analytic with verbs, and verbs hardly conjugate at all. The article is completely unreferenced and the bits which aren't complete original research seem to be mostly based on the 19th century grammar school approach, which was basically making analogies between English and Latin grammar. This approach is definitely regarded as fringe today because it's so full of holes. For example, the claim that there's such a thing as a "future tense" in English is crazy. The Latin scholars named the "will" construction the "future tense" (also randomly deciding you have to use "shall" for the first person), whereas in reality we can also use "going to" and both present tenses to talk about the future. This type of system is great for learners of Latin, not so good for learners of English. - filelake shoe 18:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Erm. Totally agreed with Filelakeshoe about what's going on here. This is very much a 19th century model of English, which is why at least some of the demonstrably wrong things are that way. Some of these very peculiar forms are attested in literature, if rarely. There are are least a couple uses of "hath been being verbed" [18] [19] and the truly bizarre "let us have been verbing" imperative form gets a mention in an 18th century French-language English grammar book. [20] I suspect there was a point in time when the material presented here was, if not considered correct, at least much closer. That time isn't now though, so the question becomes what we should do with it. Right now, it's put forth as a sort of fork of English verbs, and that's a non-starter. I'd like to think at least some of this could be useful, somewhere, but if not, it probably needs scuttled. Serpent's Choice ( talk) 18:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Do let me have been being played! - moreover do let this article have been being deleted. This is not how the English language works, and many of the terms listed simply don't exist in modern English. I did laugh... Anthem of joy ( talk) 20:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Cnilep ( talk) 21:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this bizarre article per the above arguments. Iblardi ( talk) 22:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree with the other arguments. The article is unnecessary and incorrect in many places. Material is covered by English verbs and English grammar. Count Truthstein ( talk) 13:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - especially per nom and Count Truthstein; some of the more obscure rules are also found in other articles, including cognate object and demonstrative. Bearian ( talk) 19:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There are mistakes and lots of them. The material has nothing that is really worthy of being in an encyclopaedia; perhaps this is something for wiktionary. -- Île flottante ( talk) 18:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - It is absurd to call the English Conjugation pages unreferenced Original Research. It is no more original research than all the technical information found on tens of thousands of Wiki pages, including especially linguistics and computer languages. This page needs to be improved, but not deleted. I have helped a lot of foreign speakers with their English, and have referred them to this page and used it to explain grammar to them. Overall the vast majority of this page is very instructive. The criticisms made here are good starting points for improving it. It is not an impossible task. bruvensky ( talk) 18:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment. "Absurd" to call it original research? Big swaths of this article are original, and wrong. For one example among many, consider the following line from a table of imperatives in the article, with columns by person and number:
|simple present||let me play||play||play||let him/her/it play||let us play||play||let them play
I challenge you to find a source that says that these are imperative forms in the first, second, and third persons singular and plural. You won't. Likewise for all the numerous mistakes listed above -- you won't find them anywhere else but here, because they are original and wrong. If you wish to refute the original research claim, you need to find references that substantiate the various things I've labeled at the top of this page as wrong in the article, rather than making a vague blanket statement that the article is not original. Duoduoduo ( talk) 20:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Janet Gordon-Lennox, Countess of March and Kinrara

Janet Gordon-Lennox, Countess of March and Kinrara (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTINHERITED comes into play; unless she can be shown to be notable independent of her husband or father, she doesn't get an article. Ironholds ( talk) 16:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep - if I'm understanding WP:NOTINHERITED correctly, this falls under the exemption of "situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right." —Tim Pierce ( talk) 18:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Because? Ironholds ( talk) 18:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Because the entire system of peerage is built around defining people as notable based on who they're married to or descended from. I may have it wrong, but it's my impression that Wikipedia presumes titled peers to be notable. —Tim Pierce ( talk) 19:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Titled peers are presumed to be notable because they've historically passed WP:POLITICIAN. however, she is a titled peer through her marriage and not by dint of ancestry. Ironholds ( talk) 19:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:ANYBIO: "the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor", in this case The_Honourable#United_Kingdom. This is not a failure of WP:INHERITED; although the honour was a hereditory one, it was still bestowed upon the subject herself. RichardOSmith ( talk) 18:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Except it wasn't. She's a courtesy peer because she's married to someone with an actual title. Ironholds ( talk) 19:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • No, she was born with the title I cited. RichardOSmith ( talk) 19:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
      • The Honourable being awarded to any child of a peer, even life peers. You equate this with a well-known and significant award? Ironholds ( talk) 19:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
        • The article you linked to also identified it as a courtesy only. Ironholds ( talk) 19:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (with the obvious proviso that if any notabilty for the subject in her own right is demonstrated, then that should be considered) I would have to agree with Ironholds that the Honourabletitle is just a courtesy title. In addition, even her husbands's title, the Earl of March and Kinrara, is in itself a courtesy title. There is a tradition of the sons of senior peers using a lesser title of the father as a styling, but the actual title resides with the father (in this case the father-in-law of the subject of this article, so the subject's title is most certainly merely a courtesy styling. (See Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom and a specific mention of the title in List of courtesy titles in the Peerages of the British Isles.) Returning to the subject of this article, it would need to be established that the subject is the subject of coverage in her own right to establish notabilty, either in a particular field or general notability. Apart from a few trivial mentions, not from reliable sources, that say she attended events connected with the Goodwood Estate, I can't find any coverage, although others might be more successful in finding it. FlowerpotmaN·( t) 21:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nominator. Long-established policy on encyclopædicness. James F. (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. The wife of the holder of a courtesy title is not preemptively notable, and there is no independent assertion of notability. Mackensen (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Just to close this out: I don't have a dog in this fight and the fate of this particular article is not of great interest to me. But the way WP:NOTINHERITED is written implies that this person is to be presumed notable. If it shouldn't, that's fine with me, but it should make it clear why, i.e. which titles are presumed notable and which aren't. —Tim Pierce ( talk) 19:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution

Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable bill: never got out of committee, no significant independent RS coverage, article created by the communications director for the organization backing the bill. (Those looking for sources should be careful not to mix up a Colorado state-level amendment, or other proposed state amendments, with this one; additionally, in spite of the lede in this article, it's not significant coverage of the amendment.) Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. The nom has a point about the advocacy tone of the current article, but in addition to the AP story already cited in the article, I do find more independent coverage, here for example: [21] [22] [23] [24] Enough here to make me think there is valid and worthwhile content here. I would not necessarily oppose merging this into a broader article, if one exists, but I haven't identified a likely target yet.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I found those, but I don't really consider them significant for purposes of establishing notability - the CBS one is nice and long but pretty much none of it is about the proposed amendment, as opposed to the treaty and general opposition to it, and the Indy source isn't really coverage of the amendment at all. The other sources are too short (I'm also iffy about using Christian Post to attest notability - to be notable, a subject should have received coverage in mainstream sources, not only in far-right papers when it is itself a far-right subject). Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Every session of Congress sees at least a handful of proposed Constitutional amendments that, like this one, go less than nowhere. Depending on the political clime of the day and how bored the news services are, sometimes people write about them. Much like Oakland, there's no there there. The bar for inclusion for these political-stunt amendments is (or ought be) a good bit higher than this one meets. Serpent's Choice ( talk) 20:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep*. I am the editor in question, so you know up front. I do not try to hide my affiliation with ParentalRights.org and I welcome and have welcomed critical edits to the article in order to counter my own bias. I want the article to meet Wiki's goals. The article in its current state has been significantly edited from my original posting, particularly thanks to Npdoty and TiC. I would also discourage removal based on the fact that the resolution did not make it out of committee, because the language has already been introduced again in the current Congress (HJR 3), and will be moved forward in coming months. Additionally, state-level resolutions for its passage have been passed in the last 3 months in Idaho, Montana, and Florida, and in the Texas House. These further demonstrate that it is not a dead issue. If the article is deleted, it should be if other reasons merit it; that reason is premature in my opinion. Michael Ramey 21:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The state-level thing suggests at most that the article on the UN Convention might deserve a mention on US legislative response [Ed. Fancy that, there's a whole article on the US and the Convention!]; whatever notability the state-level laws may have does not reflect on the notability of the proposed federal law, which lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
These state resolutions (none of these at the state or federal level are "bills" or "proposed laws") all call on the U.S. Congress to propose to the States for ratification the Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. While some mention the Convention, some do not. They all call for this Amendment. Since this Amendment has inspired a movement that is growing and not shrinking, I aver that the Wiki community is enriched by its mention so long as the possibility of its passage exists. Should it become the Twenty-eighth Amendment, the presence of this article from early in the process will be of benefit to Wiki goals. I am also compelled to point out that (1) "Wiki encourages COI editors" as long as their work is in keeping with Wiki goals, which I adamantly strive to achieve and (2) User:Roscelese reveals in her profile a strong personal/political motivation to oppose pro-family issues such as the one described in this article. Wiki is not intended to be a political battleground, either for promoting or opposing causes. This article is open to edits so that it will be neutral presentation, not a political promotion. But this removal attempt appears to be fueled by political interests. Michael Ramey 15:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I'd love to hear how I'm anti-family, but the discussion of the article on this thing that you're paid to promote is not the right place. Find sources that satisfy WP:GNG - not press releases, not other self-published opinion pieces from far-right political groups. This is how you indicate notability, not by claiming some movement whose existence is not supported by secondary sources. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)::::I apologize for the anti-family tag; I misread your profile; I admit my error. Michael Ramey 19:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable or not depends on coverage in press. It is sufficiently notable per quoted sources. Hodja Nasreddin ( talk) 02:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The quotes sources are...not press. One only has to look at them to notice this. Only the CBS source is, and as I pointed out, that's not significant coverage that satisfies GNG. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
"Notability requires verifiable evidence;" Wiki guidelines do not require that sources be "press." In the case of this proposed amendment and the resolutions supporting it, the records of the U.S. Congress and state legislatures are better sources than a news article. Major media's choice not to cover an event does not mean the event did not happen or is not Wiki-worthy. Michael Ramey ( talk) 15:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
"The records of the U.S. Congress and state legislatures" do not indicate notability, they're obviously a primary source. WP requires secondary sources. The lack of any significant coverage is actually a pretty good indication that it's not Wiki-worthy. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Sam Rhansum

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

This article is a biography of a living person with no sources. The subject is a rapper who has not been signed to a label. There are claims to having provided some music for TV episodes of American Gangster. That by itself is not sufficient to establish notability. I can find no coverage about him in reliable sources. Whpq ( talk) 15:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Les Gentlemen

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

This 1-sentence, 1-ref article on a band, that only says that they were 'popular", was PRODed under A7. It was de-prodded on the basis that it has a single reference. I could not find sufficient evidence of notability of this band under wp’s notability rules, including sufficient multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable sources that are independent from the band ensemble itself. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche ( talk) 15:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A Google Book preview is available for the reference in the article. The reference identifies pages 289-303 in the book which would appear substantial. My own review of the source only found a passing mention on page 294. I also found another passing mention in this book. Essentially, this verifies that Ralph Thamar was a member of the band, and not much else. -- Whpq ( talk) 14:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to One Tree Hill (TV series). Goodvac ( talk) 21:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

One Tree Hill (season 9)

One Tree Hill (season 9) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources 2,3,5 are horrible, 1 only says 13 episodes and "mid season" so WP:OR to guess it will be January, so we are left with 4, which is a pretty decent source. So for good sources we are left with 13 episodes and that some of the actors may return to the show. Delete/Redirect till more reliable info is available. CTJF83 12:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Agreed, no reliable sources, not enough information. I think it should be redirected until there's sufficient information. Last minute renewal so there's no much yet. Jayy008 ( talk) 16:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per nom, and incubate/userfy the current article so the work so far is not lost and can be built over. Nothing to merge since current information is already available at One Tree Hill (TV series)#Series end - frankieMR ( talk) 16:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Well if redirected, the current state would be "saved" in the history of the article :) CTJF83 20:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Excellent. I still get lost on how merges and history preservation actually work. Still, I believe that involved editors would like to work on it while out of the mainspace - frankieMR ( talk) 23:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I do not think the article needs to be deleted, just worked on, as it does have relevant information, just stronger sources for the Production section would be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.39.84 ( talk) 01:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I don't know if I "jumped the gun," but I redirected the article to "One Tree Hill (TV series)". Jayy008 ( talk) 15:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Chadian Arabic. Spartaz Humbug! 15:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Nigerian Arabic

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

Content fork. Text already merged with Chadian Arabic, which is the name of the language maintained at Ethnologue and Linguist List and assigned to its ISO code. — kwami ( talk) 12:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

If they're ever developed to that extent, there would be nothing wrong with splitting the article. But for now even the combined article is a stub. — kwami ( talk) 16:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Treehouse attachment bolt

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

A sub-set of lag bolts. Since lag bolt only warrants a paragraph in the screw article, this subject scarcely even warrants a redirect. far too specialised. Also verging towards being an advert. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 11:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete it looks like advertising for a trademarked product to me. Eeekster ( talk) 12:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete as spam. VQuakr ( talk) 14:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per nom; I am unable to find evidence of notability. RichardOSmith ( talk) 18:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The sources provided, although not scholarly or news media, seem to be reliable enough to provide information on this item. Obviously only of interest to people interested in building treehouses, but I don't see why WP should not have an article on it. The fact that other hardware items are undercovered is not a reason to delete this informative article. Borock ( talk) 00:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The original edit I created was free from ambiguous ads linking to other sites attempting to sell their TABs, but has since been updated mostly with original research and the like. -- Pgifford1987 ( talk) 01:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article is quite informative whereas lag bolt is almost useless in explaining what is meant. Note that there is a variety of terms for this topic and TAB might be explained in sources as Tree Anchor Bolt. See Support system innovations for some good coverage of the topic. Colonel Warden ( talk) 05:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article needs more articles in support if anything, or it may just be in the wrong place. It is about a revolutionary new device that sparked a diverse fledgling industry (building and suspension in trees, bridges, ziplines, treehouses) that does not have much certified public material to cite from yet. The private interests cited in it are currently the best sources of publicly available research and practice on the subject. They are the best sources of free information as well as to find supplies. It may be an uphill battle to avoid seeming an advert, it needs some help not to endorse a particular product, but should stay in. Jefryclair ( talk) 16:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The problems with the article are a matter of editing. The subject matter itself is sourced and the wording can be, and is currently being, fixed. Dennis Brown ( talk) 18:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Refs discovered during AfD should be incorported into the article. ( non-admin closure) v/r - T P 15:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Jeffrey Thomas (writer)

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

Cannot find enough reliable sources that indicate this author is notable. His published work is among many indpendent presses and haven't received much in the way of third-pary coverage. Jimsteele9999 ( talk) 11:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: He has been on the ballot for both the John W. Campbell Award and the Bram Stoker Award for different works, which indicates notability. References exist within the article, but, of course, could be improved. Also while his publications are through Small Press/Independent Presses, they are presses that impose editorial decisions and are not vanity presses. Shsilver ( talk) 17:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not winning a Stoker or a Campbell doesn't confer notability. If he had won, we might be talking about something, but as it is, you can get on the ballot of most of these awards simply by submitting a copy of your work for review (I'm not saying that's the case here, but I'm leaning that way, considered how many books I've seen being touted as having been on the Stoker preliminary ballot). I don't think that the presses he publishes through concern us. As far as the significant critical attention that would be his route to notability—he's seen a lot of blog attention, but I can't find any solid newspaper, literary magazine, journal, or periodical reviews. If he was notable, there'd be at least one of these. No way to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG in this state. —  Chromancer  talk
    • Comment Chromance is simply speaking from pure ignorance here. The Bram Stoker awards make a distinction between recommended (someone puts it on the list), a preliminary ballot or longlist, and the final ballot. The Campbell Award is a juried award (there are two Campbells, one for "new writer" and one for books--Thomas has been nominated for the latter). It is amazing how frequently and how freely people on Wiki insist that whatever vague notions in their heads are facts when ten seconds of research could explain the truth.

cont 21:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: I cannot believe, with his body of work and notability, that this page is being considered for deletion. Jeffrey Thomas is a fine writer and more than deserving of a Wiki page. His body of work is far more extensive than other writer's who have pages here in addition to being nominated for several prestigious awards. You would let a hack like Nick Mamatas have a page yet deny Jeffrey Thomas one? Thomas has a larger body of work, has been reviewed in the very prestigious Publishers Weekly and has been a finalist for several awards. That alone should qualify him for a page here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonebridge ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Magazine review, Publisher's Weekly: http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-84416-447-9, magazine review, The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/feb/03/featuresreviews.guardianreview16?INTCMP=SRCH Talien79 ( talk) 06:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP: First off, he was not just on the ballot for those awards, he was a finalist. Consider his competition for the Campbell Award, his novel went up against the works of Michael Chabon, Kathleen Goonan, Sherri S. Tepper, Jay Lake, Brian Aldiss, and Ken McLeod http://www2.ku.edu/~sfcenter/campbell-finalists.htm. What this appears to be is a matter of recognition. Thomas has been reviewed by Publisher's Weekly several times, it's not difficult to find these http://search2.publishersweekly.com/search?site=all&client=universal&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=universal&filter=p&tlen=128&q=jeffrey+thomas. You won't find a single bad review of his work on Amazon, and in my opinion a consumer's review is far more important than any literary critic.
  • Comment from nominator: First of all, please note what Chromancer stated, that in fact being nominated for an award does not necessarily confer notability. It seems every time an author (particularly one who writes science fiction) is nominated for deletion, legions of fans come out and claim that because the author was nomintated, short-listed or even made it to the finalist regarding the Stoker or the Campbell or some other award. I'm not sure the Stoker award denotes any distinguished writing. By that I mean the award seems to avoid the traditional system of judging work on its own merit and fostering competition among the applicants, and instead encourages newer writers to break into the publishing industry by receiving attention they wouldn't otherwise get. Thus, works can be nominated by anyone in the HWA, and this essentially makes any writer nominated able to make the preliminary ballot. I see the PW reviews, and this helps. But note, Amazon reviews (for the record, literary critics are more qualified than a random Amazon reviewer) and claiming he is a "fine writer...deserving of more than a Wiki page" once again turns this into a voting contest, something this isn't supposed to be. Jimsteele9999 ( talk) 11:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • "For the record, literary critics are more qualified than a random Amazon reviewer." Are they really? Why? Just because someone makes their living writing reviews does not make them any more qualified to decide what is and is not good, since reviews by their very nature are highly subjective. Let's remember that if the critics had been right (which, I think, most people would agree they weren't), Les Misérables would have closed within a week instead of becoming the longest-running musical in history! It was utterly panned by those "qualified" people! Just one example. No, critics are no more qualified to judge a work than the rest of us - they just get more airtime. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 00:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • The comment I made was in reference to the remark that since there "isn't one bad review of this guy's work on Amazon" he is therefore a good writer and must be notable. I don't necessarily think that because someone is a critic they automatically decide for everyone what is good or what is not. Surely, that's not the intent. I mean, a reader can read a review of a book and agree. But the critic is epressing his or her view on the work, analyzing it, reviewing it, discussing it and maybe (often, it seems) torching it in the process. Again, this doesn't mean they are deciding for others "what is good and what is not", because one would hope the readership decides that on their own. And so they have, apparently with this author, on Amazon. Well, great. But the thing is, literary critics generally have criticism that holds more weight than the average joe. And yes, they get more airtime, often because they are more qualified than the average person. Don't believe me? Why do you think blurbs are included on books? Think they don't sway opinon? I'm not going to arge whether they are right or wrong, if they are dispensing subjective advice for a paycheck, if or how they are qualified, but I do think it's worth noting this author hasn't had much in the way of any substantial reviews. A 200 word blurb does not cut it, and as I have said before if we used Publisher's Weekly as the sole source of how we determine notability we'd have no space left on this encylcopedia for authors. Jimsteele9999 ( talk) 14:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment from Talien79: Thank you for recognizing the previously cited sources as legitimate. In relation to Mr. Thomas' notability regarding awards: "1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." WP:ANYBIO We have established that Mr. Thomas has in fact been nominated twice as a finalist (not just merely nominated) for "well-known and significant" awards. How do we know these awards are well-known and significant? Because they are on Wikipedia. You argument lends credence that the Stoker award should be removed from Wikipedia, not Mr. Thomas himself. Focusing on the notability guidelines for Creative Professionals, WP:AUTHOR it seems we are primarly concerned with #3: "3.The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." If that's the case, are the previously cited independent periodical reviews a sufficient test of notability? Talien79 ( talk) 15:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment. I cannot emphasize more how much 200-word blurbs, which are not critically significant, cannot confer notability. Neither the Guardian mention (not even a full article, a paragraph in a new books section) nor the Publisher's Weekly blotter mention are sufficient to pass criterion 3. And again, not winning an award does not confer notability. It doesn't matter what portion of the ballot he was on, he still didn't win anything. —  Chromancer  talk/ cont 21:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment. Agreed, it doesn't matter what portion of the ballot he was on because it is not necessary to receive an award for notability. WP:ANYBIO indicates he can be "nominated for one several times." How many is several? Talien79 ( talk) 17:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment from nominator: Talien, we're seeing if the source(s) help the subject clear the hurdle of notability. So far, this author fails. You are not correct to assume just because an award is listed on WP it is notable. There are many articles on WP representing subjects that have no place in an encyclopedia. It is our job to collectively make this place full of articles on bona fide subjects rather than a place for vanity and fan fervor. If we had an article for every author mentioned in PW this would be a very busy place. In terms of WP:ANYBIO, the criterion is not to be interpreted as strict policy, more of suggestions for how to reach a consensus. That being said, it is worth noting that the subject of this article has recently been editing his own page (since I first nominated the article for deletion), and although this doesn't immediately violate WP:COI (as far as I know) it doesn't help us. If in fact you agree with me the Stoker awards are not an important award (or at least carry distinction the way other literary awards earned by writers judged by, say a blind-review process or a jury of some type without input from fans) than this writer--whom people have claimed has been nominated many times--is not notable. It's open and shut. Jimsteele9999 ( talk) 23:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment Jimsteele9999 has a habit of discussing literary awards while knowing nothing about them. Not every book or story recommended for a Stoker makes the preliminary ballot, not every work on the preliminary ballot makes the final ballot. The Stoker is also not an award granted by "input from fans", but by members of a professional association--the Horror Writers Association. (Incidentally, the far more prestigious and venerable Hugo IS a fan-award, essentially, and is absolutely an important award.) JimSteele, why do you continually propose writer articles for deletion when you know little about the subject, and why do you insist on propogating misinformation about the Stoker, Hugo, World Fantasy, etc. Also, you know very little about publishing--an independent press is not an inferior model of a major press. Large presses such as W.W. Norton are independent, small imprints such as Tweleve (only a dozen books a year!) are boutique elements of major presses. Solaris, which published Thomas titles, releases work in mass market paperback; by definition print runs are in the tens and tens of thousands. JimSteele999, you should not be allowed to put works up for deletion on topics about which you know nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.68.29 ( talk) 20:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment. I'm trying to understand here, so please forgive my ignorance - if we're trying to reach a consensus, aren't existing articles on Wikipedia representative of that consensus? I personally haven't done enough research to determine if the Stoker awards aren't worthy of notability, but if they aren't, I would imagine the entry should be nominated for deletion too, right? I only used the notability guidelines because the first line advocating deletion indicates that there are "not enough reliable sources that indicate this author is notable." If we're not using notability guidelines, the second statement ("haven't received much in the way of third-party coverage") has already been countered. There's plenty of third party coverage. Follow up statements seem to indicate that said third party coverage should be notable. So I'm assuming we should focus our conversation on the notability of the coverage itself (length of reviews or mentions, content, etc.) than the fact that it was covered by third parties. If at issue isn't notability, but in fact WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, then I suppose the argument rests entirely with the admin's opinion (I have no idea who the admin is in this case) of whether or not the page should be deleted. I know rough consensus isn't a headcount issue, but I think I've tried to lay out the case for retaining the article as cogently as I could, within the boundaries of 1) notability of the author (not his nominations), and 2) the original arguments provided for deletion. I would hope that any discussion here, by virtue of the need for consensus, is never "open and shut." Talien79 ( talk) 21:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. My instinct is that this chap has enough published works to be worthy of an article. He has been nominated for awards. His works are readily available. They're not just vanity press publications. Notability guidelines are just that - guidelines, not set-in-stone policies. I think it's moot whether he meets the notability guidelines or not, but I think it would be hard to say he actually outright fails them. Therefore I'm coming down on the keep side. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 23:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a no-brainer. The author has been a finalist for the Bram Stoker Award and John W. Campbell Award, is published by reputable presses, and has independent sources to back up his notability. While the article could and should be improved so it has more sources and information, the article's quality issues are not a valid reason for deletion.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 13:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A person who was a finalist for the Bram Stoker Award and a finalist for the John W. Campbell award is an author who has achieved notability within those writing groups, and that is reflected by the references given. htom ( talk) 18:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 15:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Noizy

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

Article contains no reliable sources, just references to the subject's web pages, youtube, and a fan site. No assertion that any of his recordings have charted. If we keep it, it will need cleanup, but I do not think the subject meets ENTERTAINER. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 11:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: The notability of the article has not been established. I do agree with Nuujinn that if it is kept in Wikipedpia, it will need a lot of cleanup in terms of rewriting, referencing and notability. Tashif ( talk) 11:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails to meet the inclusion criteria at WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. RichardOSmith ( talk) 19:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Emerging strong artist, very nice to hear: his song "Te urrej se te dua" was a huge success and launched Ester Hoxha. I don't understand how it doesn't meet GNG: He is huge in Albania. -- Doktor Plumbi ( talk) 02:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
GNG (which is what you rely on) requires that you point us to RS sources that reflect his notability.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Or, if he meets the criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER, that would work as well, but we really need to see some significant coverage in a reliable source. Albanian sources would be fine, but we'd have to have good translations of same. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 12:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Austin Brown

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

no real notability shown for this spam bio. he may have worked with some notable people but notability is not inherited. he may be related to some notable people but notability is not inherited. co-founding a non notable company he is signed to does not make him notable. releasing a single on your own website falls well short of what is needed for wp:music. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

logs say this was protected after two G4 deletions in 2008, don't know how it was recreated. since the recreation he has self released a single. very minor difference so another G4 may be in order. probably should be salted if delete. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I agree with the nomination, Austin Brown doesn't seem notable. TehGrauniad ( talk) 11:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I completely agree guys, it does not abide by WP:REF and WP:NOTE at all. Tashif ( talk) 11:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 14:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Taleah Doyle

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

Football player who plays for semi-professional league (per WP:FPL) and only had youth international appearances, thereby falling short of WP:NFOOTBALL guidelines. Coverage is general sports journalism that does not show this person to have achieved anything of particular note to Wikipedia standards (previously listed under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Logue Club Oranje T 09:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Club Oranje T 10:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 14:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

A Friend Called Anne

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

Could not find reliable sources to establish notability. Oo7565 ( talk) 08:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and above comment, no proof of notability, this article could have been prodded, Sadads ( talk) 15:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • this had been depoded in the past Oo7565 ( talk) 19:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Steve Crowther

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

Current executive chairman of the UK Independence Party, so I expected him to be notable. I added a few refs to the article, but I couldn't find anything that is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, to satisify the general notability guideline. Asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Steve Crowther and haven't received a response in over 10 days. Doesn't meet any of the criteria set out at WP:POLITICIAN either. If anyone can find refs that satisfy the GNG, I'll be happy to withdraw the nom, but I just can't find anything. Jenks24 ( talk) 07:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Jenks24 ( talk) 07:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Would a redirect to UK Independence Party apply here? (WP:POLITICIAN advises it but referring to the election's article, not specifically to the party) - frankie ( talk) 01:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Hmmm, yes I hadn't thought of that, but a redirect would be fine with me. Jenks24 ( talk) 05:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Tamil Forums

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

Completely unreferenced WP:Original research, no evidenced WP:Notability MatthewVanitas ( talk) 17:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 01:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete OR. Looks like someone associated with (or a fan of) tamilnadutalk.com is doing a promotion for them-- Sodabottle ( talk) 04:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Matthewrbowker Say hi! 06:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm treating this as a prod. Spartaz Humbug! 15:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Bohdan Warchomij

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. gnews merely confirms he has taken photos for news.com.au [31]. google search mainly reveals directory listings. created by a single purpose editor so potentially WP:AUTOBIO. those wanting to keep must show indepth third party coverage of this individual not a WP:GOOGLEHITS argument. LibStar ( talk) 06:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Question to nominator, who writes: those wanting to keep must show indepth third party coverage of this individual. They must? Why? -- Hoary ( talk) 14:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
because i can't find evidence of such, and frankly too many keep voters say WP:MUSTBESOURCES and don't supply any. LibStar ( talk) 14:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Are you implying that any AfD that fails to come up with in-depth third-party coverage ends, or should end, in deletion? -- Hoary ( talk) 15:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Please read WP:N. LibStar ( talk) 15:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I have a passing acquaintance with it. A sane version (from January this year) of its "nutshell": Wikipedia covers notable topics—those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources. A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion as a standalone article if it complies with WP:NOT and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. [...].The current version: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant and enduring notice by the world at large, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to determine if the world has shown "significant enough notice" for an encyclopedia article. [...]. The current talk of enduring notice would seem to me to require that every topic should be at least twenty years old; and once this is combined with a requirement that notice should be by the world at large, most topics are out, because only a tiny percentage of WP editors can start to look for significant notice in Swahili, Hausa, Mongolian, Azeri, etc. ¶ The January version takes the form A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion as a standalone article if X. So X is a sufficient reason for inclusion. It is not thereby a necessary reason for inclusion. (Or do you take the current version seriously?) -- Hoary ( talk) 00:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I am no longer going to respond to your need for long explanations. This is AfD exists for discussing the notability of this subject not broad ranging rants. LibStar ( talk) 03:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Oh dear, LibStar, I hope I haven't offended you! No, no, I am not requesting a long explanation, let alone a broad-ranging rant; I am merely wondering whether you are as well acquainted with " WP:N" as you might be. -- Hoary ( talk) 03:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Thirteen of Everything

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

I could not find sufficient evidence of notability of this band under wp’s notability rules, including multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable sources that are independent from the band ensemble itself. Others are welcome to try. It has been tagged for notability since 2010. Epeefleche ( talk) 05:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC. It's interesting to note that the article states their debut album received "wide acclaim", yet never charted according to Billboard.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This band released a single album in 2005 (according to their website). The lack of a review on AllMusic is usually telling. In order to be thorough, however, I looked through the list of reviews listed on the band's website. Based on that, it's clear that the album did not attract mainstream critical attention. I don't think that any of the criteria of WP:BAND are met in this case. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 17:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per A7. MrKIA11 ( talk) 02:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The Hillbilly Gypsies

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

I could not find sufficient evidence of notability of this band under wp’s notability rules, including multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable sources that are independent from the band ensemble itself. Others are welcome to try. It has been tagged for notability since 2010 Epeefleche ( talk) 05:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete Article doesn't pass A7 in my view, so could have been speedied instead.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Codonics

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

The company claims several local awards, but any coverage of this company appears to be in press releases rather than secondary sources. VQuakr ( talk) 05:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable, spam, COI (author appears to be the company's IT manager), etc. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Ben Richards (Snowboarder)

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

Non-notable individual with a source relating to an entirely different person. All the alleged accomplishments appear to be hoaxes, with no corroboration whatsoever via Google. Meph talk 05:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I have attempted to locate any media mentions of any of the unsourced claims regarding awards and have not turned up a single hit on google or bing. The single source in the article links to an IMDB profile for what appears to be an entirely different person. This appears to be a non-notable athlete per WP:ATHLETE. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 16:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I call bullpiffle on this one. He claims to have competed and finished 18th in some unspecified event at the Winter X Games of 2010. A look at Winter X Games XIV shows not one single event even had 18 competitors. And as for all the other accomplishments, that's pretty impressive top world results for somebody who isn't registered with the FIS, the world governing body for the sport. --- Whpq ( talk) 14:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per A7. MrKIA11 ( talk) 02:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)` reply

The Globalat Playboys

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

Prod removed by IP without explanation. No real claim to notability, article is pretty promotional, and I could not find anything to prove that this act is notable by any of our standards. Drmies ( talk) 05:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Bülent Usta

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

No evidence passes our criteria for notability. I did look at [32], our Turkish Wiki, but that didn't help much. Dougweller ( talk) 05:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Usergate Mail Server

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

recently released piece of software with no sources/no claim to notability present in the article/no significant third party coverage. disputed prod. Kevin ( talk) 05:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - newly released product has 3 gnews hits... of which at least two are press releases (hard for me to tell on the third; not English.) -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 05:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as per above. User also seems to be simply generating a significant amount of spam articles which have all been csd g11'ed. Tiggerjay ( talk) 08:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Rlendog ( talk) 14:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Colonization of stars

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

This article claims to be about colonization of stars, but the text refers to colonization of other planetary systems. I am not aware that there is any plan to colonize stars. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 04:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Comment the nominator is being overly literal minded. Colonizing the stars means colonizing star systems other than the Sun's, which would involve colonizing the planets of those stars. 65.95.13.213 ( talk) 05:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect no content in the article. This topic is covered in the article Space colonization. 65.95.13.213 ( talk) 05:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Robert Sepulveda Jr.

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

No reliable sources to establish notability of an individual. Zero google news/books hits found for the full name, and web hits show images, youtube videos, and model/"socialite" websites, which don't mean much for notability.

Admittedly I gutted the article of most of the claims to notability, but they were claims that the father is minorly notable in a very minor little Florida town, as well as some sort of weird claim about feudal Notability through a vice vicar in Puerto Rico in the 1500s- in any case, notability is not inherited anyhow. tedder ( talk) 03:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, but still. And how dare you, sir! tedder ( talk) 04:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom: not notable given the absence of evidence. Drmies ( talk) 04:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Kanibal Holokaust

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

No assertion of notability — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ( talk) 19:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Community Education Computer Society

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

article has existed since 2006 with no substantial improvement. fails WP:ORG. 1 gnews hit, and google mainly reveals directory listings. LibStar ( talk) 02:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Franklin Reyes

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

I do not believe this individual meets the criteria of WP:ATHLETE. Google search for "Franklin Reyes" baseball does not come up with any helpful results. He won MVP of a tournament, but that's not enough. Being the fiance of a famous person does not make one automatically notable. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 02:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment This whole thing seems a bit shady. The link to the story of his fiancee's death is a message board post -- Cheron's page does not list her as deceased, and I can find no stories on Google of Cheron's death at all. I can also find no stories stating that Cheron is engaged to this person outside that same message board post and one user-provided answer on Answers.com. I smell hoax. - Dewelar ( talk) 15:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - That he won the MVP of this tournament seems true [33] but I don't know that that is enough to confer adequate notability. Who he is engaged to is irrelevant. Rlendog ( talk) 15:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG catastrophically. I'm not even sure the tournament itself is notable. Beyond the USCAA's own website, there doesn't seem to be much information available on it on the web. I certainly can't find any information on Reyes himself beyond that brief mention. Even if everything that was removed from the article due to possible WP:BLP violations is correct, that still wouldn't add up to notability. - Dewelar ( talk) 17:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not meet WP:NSPORTS for college athletes as the MVP award mentioned is not from a notable tournament. Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage from WP:Reliable sources. — Bagumba ( talk) 17:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Dewelar said it best, so I'll QFT: "Fails WP:GNG catastrophically." –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Ian Jobling

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

Non-notable person; I can't find significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources. The only significant coverage is from the SPLC, here: [34] The article also links to articles from the Washington Post and New York Times, but neither one is actually about him; one only mentions him briefly, the other one not at all. The rest of the sources in the article are self-published. I can find nothing to suggest that he is in any way notable. Robofish ( talk) 00:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

(Someone claiming to be the subject of the article posted on the talk page linking to several other sources discussing him, but I don't believe any of them meet our reliable source guidelines.) Robofish ( talk) 01:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I checked the Proquest newspaper archive and the only significant references there to an "Ian Jobling" are to a minor UK politician.   Will Beback  talk  02:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability; no significant coverage. -- Orange Mike | Talk 12:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO, no meaningful coverage in reliable sources ukexpat ( talk) 15:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Your hatred of his politics cannot justify blacklisting him [ WP:I just don’t like it]. (Orangemike, did you really condemn the subject as “racist”? Did you also organize this cyber-lynch party?)

Being condemned by the SPLC alone would more than justify keeping him.

By the way, all three articles in the New York Times and Washington Post that Jobling’s WP bio links to discuss his scholarly article. That two of the authors cited Jobling’s two co-authors, but slighted him is not his fault, but is typical of what passes for “reliable sources” at WP.

http://www.ur.umich.edu/0304/Oct27_03/14.shtml

Under this “Ian Jobling” (excluding references to others by that name, such as the Australian sports scholar), Google Books lists 10 books and two journals, almost all of which are scholarly works, which cite him.

http://www.google.com/#q=%22Ian+Jobling%22&hl=en&biw=1419&bih=813&prmdo=1&tbm=bks&prmd=ivnso&ei=dnTcTZ-6FMO_tgevoazCDw&start=80&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=791c694ea90e5cd2

Under this “Jobling, Ian” (excluding references to others by that name, such as the Australian sports scholar, and previously cited works), Google Books lists an additional six scholarly books which cite him. (I could be off in my count by one.)

http://www.google.com/#q=%22Jobling,+Ian%22&hl=en&biw=1419&bih=813&prmdo=1&tbm=bks&ei=-nXcTcruCdDdgQflibkV&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=791c694ea90e5cd2

That makes for 15 or 16 books, two journal articles, two New York Times articles, and one Washington Post article.

Over three years ago, Jobling made the best case I can think of for his notability, on his talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ian_Jobling

Academics

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)

Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.

[ [35]] 74.72.23.106 ( talk) 03:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Note: I've reminded user:74.72.23.106 to avoid canvassing.   Will Beback  talk  05:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
reply to personal attack - I certainly would classify him as racist; I also regard water as wet, consider the Pope an obvious papist, and don't think that Genghis Khan was born in Hawaii. I didn't organize any parties, although I am about to leave for a science fiction convention where I anticipate parties will be held. -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Note: To what “personal attack” would you be “replying,” Orange Mike? Ian Jobling charged you with making personal attacks against him. When I asked you if the charge was true, you confessed, but sought to flip your guilt into a claim that you were being victimized by a “personal attack.”
  • Note 2: I reminded User:Will Beback that he is an obsessive canvasser, and should not be warning others not to engage in his own favorite behavior. Will Beback canvassed Mild Bill Hiccup to threaten me, and is engaged in retaliation against me, for my opposition to the attempted political blacklisting of Ian Jobling. Gee whiz, guys, you can’t tolerate even a single voice of dissent. So much for “building consensus.” 74.72.23.106 ( talk) 14:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • For the record, I never canvassed Mild Bill Hiccup or contacted him in any way.   Will Beback  talk  21:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
      • I can confirm that. Nor have I ever contacted Will Beback. I tried to explain this to 74.72.23.106 on my talk page. Mild Bill Hiccup ( talk) 09:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
      • So how did he know to retaliate against me? The Psychic Friends Network went belly-up a long time ago. And when did you stop canvassing? 74.72.23.106 ( talk) 07:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. He has published a few academic papers in recognized journals, but that is insufficient to meet the standards of WP:ACADEMIC, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:BK. Qworty ( talk) 20:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete He co-wrote (third author out of three) one academic paper, in Human Nature; it has been cited 31 times, completely failing WP:ACADEMIC. His non-academic writing has not received enough attention to meet WP:AUTHOR. The claim in the article that "The Washington Post[2] and the New York Times[3][4] devoted articles to the piece" in Human Nature is false. Reference 4 actually is about the article but quotes only the primary author, mentioning Jobling in passing; references 2 and 3 do not appear to mention Jobling at all. He personally has not received enough attention to pass WP:GNG; Google News Archive finds several other Ian Joblings more notable than he is. BTW this isn't about blacklisting him over his politics; we have articles about all kinds of people who hold fringe or even despicable views. This is about meeting Wikipedia's criteria, and he doesn't. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Science fiction convention. The merge target isn't clearly signposted so use your imagination folks Spartaz Humbug! 15:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Peace-bonding

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

This topic is not notable. The vast majority of the article is unreferenced, and the main Google Books source which the last AfD was predicated on (interestingly, nobody has bothered to add it into the article) clearly does not contain the significant coverage which is required, since it doesn't address the topic of peace-bonding "directly and in detail." ╟─ Treasury Tag► consulate─╢ 08:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, this isn't really much more than a long dicdef in this form. (Willing to reconsider if there's substantial rewriting before the end of the AfD)-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, although I'm sad to see that this never got the much-needed revision after the last AFD. In addition to the source in the article and the other mentioned by the nominator, there is also a passage by Pournelle that I mentioned in the first AFD. I do not have access to that source at this time, and the text is not available online, but he discusses the topic in the context of conventioneering history. I remain convinced that the 1980s fantasy/convention fanzines have a wider discussion of this history; there was at one point considerable debate over how to accommodate armed costumes without creating a public safety hazard, and such sources are the likeliest place to find documentation of it. However, they were not in general well preserved or well-indexed, and I have not had success in that regard. A more typically historical reference is the discussion of friðbond (with several spelling variants) in several Icelandic sagas, as discussed in this book (pp.194-185) and several other sources. There is some suggestion online that a similar practice may have been instituted in Spain during the duello period, but I'm still looking for reliable documentation there. Regardless, although there do not appear to be any sources dedicated to the topic in the main, that's not a requirement under the notability guideline. Serpent's Choice ( talk) 16:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    Indeed. The requirement is actually that multiple reliable sources give the subject significant coverage, discussing it directly and in detail. That simply does not seem to be the case here. ╟─ Treasury Tag► most serene─╢ 19:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into some larger article such as Science fiction convention or Cosplay pending improvement. The custom and concept certainly exist so turning the topic into a redlink would be unhelpful to our readership. Colonel Warden ( talk) 06:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The current article content is worth having and could certainly be referenced better than at present - bit would really work better as a section of an article, in something like Weapons policy (conventions), than as a free-standing one (peace-bonding is one, but not the only, solution to the problem it addresses). However, as that article doesn't currently exist, I would suggest, in order of desirability, expand and move this article into such a more general article, merge per Colonel Warden if a suitable article can be agreed on, or weak keep. PWilkinson ( talk) 00:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment if this is deleted, it should redirect to Peace bond (Canada). 65.95.13.213 ( talk) 05:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as above, not useful for readers in its current form Shii (tock) 12:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Comment if it is merged, a disambiguation page should replace it, instead of a redirect, unless it redirects to the Canadian article, where a hatnote could be added. 65.95.13.213 ( talk) 04:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge I actually came to this article through a Google search and it was useful to me as I didn't know what the dickens the practice peace bonding was, now I do. Given that the purpose of WP is to educate and that's what this article does so I would suggest that a straight delete to be a bad outcome. If it's insufficiently notable to retain it's own article it should at the very least be merged into another and redirected/disambiguated. Xmp ( talk) 23:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    So WP:ITSUSEFUL then? ╟─ Treasury Tag► Not-content─╢ 07:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Comparison of development estimation software

Comparison of development estimation software (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Original reasoning was Not need only three notable software items. See also link is sufficient.. Article also has no sources and so qualifies as WP:OR.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 03:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply


  • Keep This article is important in my opinion, it covers software which are hard to compare for non-professionals, The validity of this article is the same as existing software articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_project_management_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_server_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_screencasting_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_revision_control_software and many other articles Franklin90210 ( talk) 14:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

2006 Jujutsu World Championships

2006 Jujutsu World Championships (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable championship without sources to back its notability. Dwanyewest ( talk) 01:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Papaursa ( talk) 03:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I found (and added to the article) the sponsoring organization (the JJIF). I believe the JJIF is notable (although its article could use additional sourcing), so I believe its world championship is notable. It would be nice if additional sources could be found for this article. Papaursa ( talk) 03:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep World championships seem notable to me. I wonder about a World championship that only seems to include Europeans, but it's clearly an international competition from a known organization. Article needs better sources. Astudent0 ( talk) 14:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Summary of a specific sports event, might be of use, deletion would accomplish nothing. Carrite ( talk) 00:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The Bash (band)

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

I could not find sufficient evidence of notability of this band under wp’s notability rules, including sufficient multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable sources that are independent from the band ensemble itself. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche ( talk) 00:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 00:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Several searches show sufficient notoriety in accordance with wp's notability rules. "Snooki" of Jersey Shore fame was in the group for a brief period of time, and the group was mentioned in "This Is it", the Michael Jackson documentary/movie. Group is very well known in America as well as Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.223.193 ( talk) 06:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC) — 24.46.223.193 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Please point us to the RSs that support your assertions. Tx.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 06:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no notability here, large parts of the article is just made up. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. no evidence Snooki was in the band. duffbeerforme ( talk) 09:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article is full of made-up nonsense, has no sources other than the band itself and a Facebook page, and the supposed "source" for the claim Snooki was in the band is just a group on Facebook. The content is not encyclopedic, there are no valid sources, the topic is not notable, the article is poorly written and full of obvious untruths, and it is shameless self-promotion. -- Yetisyny ( talk) 16:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The Shipwrecks

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

I could not find sufficient evidence of notability of this band under wp’s notability rules, including multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable sources that are independent from the band ensemble itself. Others are welcome to try. It has been tagged for notability since 2008. Epeefleche ( talk) 00:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 00:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Re-checked. Unable to find any evidence of notability. Bongo matic 00:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ( talk) 19:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Larne Cricket Club

Larne Cricket Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Laurelvale Cricket Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Portadown Cricket Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Templepatrick Cricket Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a professional club, and playing in the third tier of a provincial league, does not pass WP:CLUB or WP:GNG, also nominating Laurelvale Cricket Club, Portadown Cricket Club & Templepatrick Cricket Club for the same reason. Mtking ( talk) 10:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

These pages should not be deleted because the articles do indicate how or why the subjects are important or significant: they say that the clubs play in the NCU Senior League, i.e. they are senior cricket clubs in Ireland, the highest status of cricket club in Ireland (as opposed, e.g. to junior clubs). All senior cricket clubs in Ireland deserve at least a stub, just as all senior football clubs have one. Clubs in lower tiers of this league may progress to the second and first tiers. Mooretwin ( talk) 10:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope ( talk) 12:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep - sufficient notable material is available for all. They play in a provincial (and not provisional) league, much like most sport within Ireland. Off the top of my head for example, Irish internationals Noel and Alan Nelson both played at Laurelvale and there is plenty of other source material to bolster these articles. Tough to AGF when you see hasty tagging like this, and obvious from response that knows nothing of the subject matter. Taking the attitude that these clubs are non notable shows ignorance of the set up in Ireland. Cregagh, for instance, currently lag in Section 3, but were until the 70s one of top clubs, with the likes of Irish internationals like Charlie Corry and Frank Fee playing for them. At the same time in the 70s Carrickfergus were in the bottom league and are now in the top section and have had internationals such as South African AB de Villiers and New Zealander Andre Adams play for them, as well as Irish international Ryan Eagleson. Weejack48 ( talk) 14:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Spell checker error aside I was unable to find anything that fit the WP:CLUB or WP:GNG test for them, if you can then I will haply withdraw the nomination. As for the clams of past top players playing then that is a case of WP:INHERITED. Mtking ( talk) 23:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
It took approximately ten minutes to source and insert content and sources for the bottom nominated article on your list - without searching mountain high and low for the material. I know that sufficient and notable content is available for all the senior cricket clubs within Ireland without much effort. This is the layer of clubs that provide the players for the Irish national side that competed in the recent World Cup. The content added was all I had time to include in the short space of time available. As for your top players comment, this is laughable. In essence this is what all sporting clubs claim, as the performance of those top players contributes to the success (or failure) and notability of the sporting club in the first place. Also relying on web searches you can easily fall into the WP:RECENT trap. Weejack48 ( talk) 07:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
With the possiable exception of two LOCAL news stories ( Historic day for Templepatrick Cricket Club and Further Financial Investment in Templepatrick Cricket Club) None of those are Significant coverage that sources address the subject directly in detail (see WP:GNG) and WP:CLUB Mtking ( talk) 21:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
WikiProject Cricket has devised notability guidelines. For clubs, while there is no specific guideline for Irish cricket, there is for English cricket. The guideline for English cricket is that any club that belongs to "one of the Bradford Cricket League, the Lancashire League, the Central Lancashire League or one of the ECB Premier Leagues is notable. In other words, clubs belonging to senior provincial leagues are notable. The provincial leagues in Ireland are the equivalent of these leagues in England and, therefore, clubs belonging to those leagues meet the notability guidelines. Mooretwin ( talk) 10:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
You can not compare sports leagues across countries like that, for example a soccer club playing at the 7 level in England could be considered notable but one playing at the 5 level in say Iraq would not be. Mtking ( talk) 21:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Regardless of your views on Iraqi football, the senior provincial leagues for club cricket in Ireland are the equivalent of the regional leagues for club cricket in England. Mooretwin ( talk) 08:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC) reply
But here is the problem in your logic and you cannot have it both ways - the Lancashire, Bradford and Central Lancashire are provincial leagues that are essentially amateur in status with in most cases one or two professionals employed at most. Also, please go to some other sporting club articles and remove the details of players/members and coaches and claim that their achievements are inherited by the club article. Your statement on sources is akin to saying (excuse the hyperbole here) that Alex Ferguson cannot be mentioned in the Manchester United article because the club is only inheriting his coaching achievements, utter rubbish. Weejack48 ( talk) 21:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
No it is not what I am saying, however if Ferguson, after leaving Man U went to coach his Pub team, that would not make his pub team notable. Mtking ( talk) 22:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Agreed - but I fail entirely to see how this last point is relevant to your argument. (Mind you an article for the pub team might be notable given the likely news coverage!) The club coach does not carry out his work in a vacuum and you would appear to be dismissive of this in order to prove you point and bolster your case. He coaches his fellow club members and his progress and achievement with his club has gained European wide recognition and coverage. How is this (as you claim) inherited coverage any different from an MLB club claiming in their article the achievements of a transient athlete winning a Cy Young or MVP award based on their individual performance. Finally the English amateur provincial leagues you feel are not the equivalent of the Irish Leagues, are not even the feeder sides to the English national team, they have the County sides in between. The Irish players, with very very few exceptions made their breakthrough to the Irish side whilst playing in the Irish provincial leagues. An Irish side that for your info defeated the English team in the last Cricket World Cup. Weejack48 ( talk) 07:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The individual players in these clubs are agreed to be not notable, but it is reasonable that the clubs should be. People like me not familiar with the sport or the area but seeing a mention of them would expect to find at least some information --the above discussion of just what their role is is useful, and belongs in the articles DGG ( talk ) 14:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep these four articles, at least for now. When this AfD began, each of the four nominated articles was a very short stub. Since then, one of the four articles has been expanded significantly, which leads me to believe that there may be coverage out there for each of these clubs. Cricket clubs do not have to be professional to garner coverage in secondary sources. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 17:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, and a question. First, I know nothing at all about cricket. The statement above by Mooretwin (the senior provincial leagues for club cricket in Ireland are the equivalent of the regional leagues for club cricket in England) was left uncontested, and per WP:CRIN that would pretty much wrap it up. Even more, if it is the case that the there are more league "levels" (is that the word?) in England than Ireland, that would only make the Irish league more "professional" than their English counterpart (since they're closer to the top brass). So, is that statement accurate? - frankie ( talk) 23:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Amy Miller (actress)

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

Non-notable actress sourced only to IMDB. Doesn't seem to pass the guidelines for entertainers and no reliable sources to be found. - Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. She had the role of a primary antagonist in a nationally broadcast and internationally known television program.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 18:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 23:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
May I suggest you see previous deletions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewen Macintosh? WP:ENTERTAINER says that an actor must have had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."; one show is not "multiple". Also, the general notability guidelines require significant discussion in third party sources, which are non-existant here. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Contredanse (band)

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

Non-notable, as far as I can tell after having undertaken a wp:before search. Epeefleche ( talk) 18:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 12:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The original AfD discussion of this article was a decision to "keep, assuming that the article can be expanded." In the four years since that decision, it's been virtually untouched; one editor fixed some typos, a bot dropped by, and that's it. I think that's as much confirmation as you can get that the article can't be expanded, which makes the basis for the original decision to keep it invalid.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 03:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The Chestnut King

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

No worthy content. It mentions that the books exists, but nothing more. Night of the Big Wind ( talk) 19:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Comment That this article is currently only a stub is no reason to delete it. RichardOSmith ( talk) 19:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 12:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep no content is not a reason to delete, and the author and his work appear notable, Sadads ( talk) 13:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is a significant number of blog reviews, some may fail WP:RS but they all were independent, and being part of notable trilogy (with the first book already lined up for a film adaptation) makes this article the more valid, unless the idea is to cover all three books in one single article (which I don't think would be convenient) - frankie ( talk) 00:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Jaroslav Pavelka

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

Non-notable hockey player. Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Iftelse ( talk) 20:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 12:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 12:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Doesn't appear to have appeared in the Extraliga yet and doesn't seem to be such a highly rated prospect that he would be likely to be a NHL 1st round draft pick this year, so not meeting WP:NHOCKEY. If someone can find Czech sources that show he meets WP:GNG would be glad to reconsider, but I didn't find sufficient English sources. Rlendog ( talk) 18:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Vendetta Pro Wrestling

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP. The references in the article are trivial mentions and/or unreliable sources that do not establish notability. The exception is the article in the Santa Maria Times but that appears to be a local publication for Santa Maria, California where the promotion is headquartered, and therefore doesn't do much to establish notability either. Nikki♥ 311 21:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Nikki♥ 311 21:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Nikki♥ 311 21:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Only a couple of passing mentions and the rest are listings of events on targeted forums - frankieMR ( talk) 23:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Contentious ridings in the Canadian federal election, 2011

Contentious ridings in the Canadian federal election, 2011 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Per discussion at Talk:Contentious ridings in the Canadian federal election, 2011, the basic problem here is that this serves as a record of the conventional wisdom that was in place before election day — basically relying on media analysis of "ridings to watch" that was published during the campaign — but falls flat on its ass the moment you try to compare it to anything that actually happened on election day.

Neither the Conservatives nor the New Democrats, for example, succeeded in winning even half of their supposed "target" seats — and yet both parties significantly overperformed in seats that weren't considered viable "targets" before the election began; the NDP, in particular, took just seven of their 15 official "target" seats, and yet won about 60 seats in which conventional wisdom was expecting them to finish completely off the radar. In other words, they won just short of nine times as many seats that aren't listed here as they did seats that are. The Liberals, meanwhile, not only failed to take any of their "target" seats, but completely failed to win a single seat in the entire country, "target" or not, that they didn't already hold before the election started. And for their part, the Greens have two "target" seats listed here, and won one of them — but the one they actually won is listed here as an artificial "special case", i.e. sink maximum resources into getting the leader a seat, which doesn't actually meet any of the criteria listed at the top of the article as defining a conventional "target seat".

So, basically, this article is applying conventional wisdom to a transformational wave election which literally ate the stuffing out of conventional wisdom — it tells you a whole lot about things that didn't happen, and almost nothing about things that did, and consequently it can never be a helpful article for future students of the Canadian federal election, 2011 to actually peruse. It's a record of what the pundits were predicting might happen, but it will never be able to provide a useful analysis of what actually did happen. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 23:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - I hate the title of this. "Contentious" ridings implies that someone is passing editorial judgement on which particular ridings are competitive and which are not, which is pretty much the definition of Original Research in the bad, verboten sort of way. Carrite ( talk) 00:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
That's exactly it — the only concession to neutrality here is that it's not strictly our own editorial judgement, but a compilation of other sources' editorial judgements. And there's nothing particularly notable about that in principle. Bearcat ( talk) 00:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Yeah, the thing that tears me, my friend, is that there actually is such a thing as "competitive" electoral districts and this isn't terrible political science. Which is why I weeble and wobble in the wind on the Keep or Delete question. No opinion at this point. Carrite ( talk) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
That's true. But the problem here is that the majority of the electoral districts that were actually competitive in this election were not the ones that were predicted to be competitive districts before the election. This is a list of the latter, following an election in which the former and the latter bore so little relation to each other that a list of the latter is simply useless trivia. Bearcat ( talk) 01:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Screw it, Keep. This is a list, pretty clearly defined, and sourced, but I totally understand where this nomination is coming from. Carrite ( talk) 00:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite ( talk) 15:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 00:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. With the political shift that this election saw, the ridings that were close in the last election, weren't in this one. 117Avenue ( talk) 03:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the essential problem with this article is that it's essentially a meta-analysis of news from sometime before 9:30PM EST on 2 May 2011. By roughly an hour later, everything in this article was outdated. WP:NOTNEWS seems to apply here, in addition to Bearcat's summary above. →  ROUX  ₪ 10:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The list that's provided was pro-forma; there is no indication about whether or not the results were close in each case. A better idea would have been a list of ridings that turned out to be close when the smoke of the battle cleared. PK T(alk) 15:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Candid Camera (Australian photographic exhibition)

Candid Camera (Australian photographic exhibition) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. it is not common practice to create separate articles for a 3 month art gallery exhibition unless it gets significant coverage, given that galleries hold exhibitions all the time. the best coverage i could find in Australian news siteswas a photo slide show [36] and a competition to win tickets [37]. LibStar ( talk) 00:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I agree, one exhibition is not worthy of its own article, unless it was very extraordinary and/or influential. Having said that, there is tons of WP:Other stuff that also should go. BigJim707 ( talk) 00:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Common practice and notability are not even remotely the same thing, but LibStar tries to link the two. The only relevant question is notability. The gallery in question is undoubtedly one of the most important in Australia, and the exhibition was an enquiry into the Australian nation's social history via a 30-year retrospective of work by noted social documentary photographers such as Max Dupain and David Moore (photographer). True, galleries hold exhibitions all the time, but nationally important art galleries don't hold exhibitions as significant as this one all the time. According to WP:BEFORE, LibStar has a duty to investigate the article history and the subject before nominating it for deletion and, as part of that, make a 'good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist'. But the reality is that LibStar hasn't even properly read the article, which includes a link to an 850 word review in the leading daily newspaper published in one of Australia's state capitals (Australia only has one truly national general interest daily newspaper). Though the links aren't yet attached, there is plenty of other coverage, including a television interview of a participating photographer that was carried by the Australian national broadcaster. The link to that was recently pasted in another of LibStar's AfDs, as part of the refutation by another user and in part of the discussion that LibStar explicitly responded to, and LibStar should therefore be well aware of it. Again, LibStar seems to be deliberately ignoring evidence rather than trying to find it so that the article can be strengthened. The call for deletion is unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueThird ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The gallery in question is undoubtedly one of the most important in Australia may be true but this discussion is about the notability of this specific exhibition. LibStar ( talk) 03:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • That's a dishonest argument, LibStar. You're trying to suggest that I don't go on to address the question of notability, when I start to do so in the very same sentence that you selectively quote. BlueThird ( talk) 04:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
      • any coverage outside of Adelaide? LibStar ( talk) 04:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
        • The fact that the link above says Adelaide at the end is completely irrelevant. Here's a link to the same interview on the ABC's local station in Oodnawoopwoop. As I'm sure you'll realise, that link certainly doesn't mean that Oodnawoopwoop exists. The interview is offered, by Australia's national broadcaster on its national website, to anyone who wants to see it, wherever they may be in the world. BlueThird ( talk) 07:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
          • Source: Stateline South Australia. LibStar ( talk) 07:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
            • Once again: produced by Australia's national broadcaster, offered for global access on its national website. BlueThird ( talk) 09:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
anything published online can be viewed globally online. that does not make it internationally notable. LibStar ( talk) 06:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • important art galleries don't hold exhibitions as significant as this one all the time. where is the evidence of this? I don't see it being covered anywhere outside of Adelaide, surely such a claim would be backed with national coverage of such a super signficant exhibition. LibStar ( talk) 07:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Here's a link to a 1600 word review, carried in both the print and and online editions of Australia's only national newspaper, written by their national art critic. BlueThird ( talk) 09:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 00:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 00:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete. It's my view that the sources mentioned aren't quite enough to meet WP:N. The three sources given here and in the article do discuss the exhibition in some depth but I don't think that's quite enough as exhibitions etc are always going to get a certain amount of "what's on" coverage and the organisers will obviously be pushing for that sort of coverage. As such, ideally, I'd like to see coverage from after the exhibition has finished. I will happily reconsider my !vote if such sources, or a significant number of extra sources like the current one, are found. Dpmuk ( talk) 10:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A modest article making modest claims, on an event written up (getting quite a bit more than "a certain amount of 'what's on' coverage") in one of Australia's few major national newspapers. Ideally, I too would like to see "coverage from after the exhibition [...] finished"; however, coverage need not be ideal in order to be adequate. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • ARTICLE COMPLETELY REWRITTEN. It now places Candid Camera in context within the overall subject area: social documentary photography in Australia. What was implicit, for someone who read the article with some existing knowledge of the subject and checked the references, is now explicit. Noted on a sentence-by-sentence basis; linked whenever possible. I’ve tried to make sure that the other edits have been carried forward, where that’s appropriate, but apologise if I haven’t got them all. Can I suggest that anyone who has commented or voted so far take another look? My personal feeling is that it's too early for 'after the event' coverage. Any journalist writing about the show now would simply make readers wonder why they weren't told about it at the time. The original Six Photographers only lasted a few weeks, if that, and probably only came to be seen for how important it really was many years, even decades, later. That said, I'm entirely confident, and hope to have shown, that as photographic exhibitions go, this one was extremely ambitious. BlueThird ( talk) 07:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. There are numerous hits that cover the event but most do it as routine journalism, and there's nothing that points to any lasting significance (i.e. to the point where notability becomes not temporary). The usual caveats applies - frankie ( talk) 10:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • The exhibition closed less than one year ago, and so there has not been much time for mention of it (or more) to appear in books on Australian photography. (And there are few such books: When I looked for some three years or so ago, I found just two, neither of them mentioned in this article and both of them seriously flawed, to put it politely.) -- Hoary ( talk) 00:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. After BlueThird's recent reworking, the article strikes me as exemplary. This doesn't mean that it is exemplary: I haven't chased up the references and done the other work that I might do if, say, it were more ambitious, longer, and a FA candidate. But it's at the point where the AfD looks absurd. Or rather, it would look absurd but for either or both of two objections. The first is that such exhibitions are routine. The second is that no deep coverage has been dug up. Neither objection can be laughed off so quickly. However, I (who don't matter) and the world in general (which does matter) can laugh off Wikipedia as a whole, for its combination of (a) a demand for proof of importance of any material such as this, and (b) the warm and undiscriminating welcome it gives to stuff that appeals to little boys. ¶ No, this is not an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument; it is a WHYDOESWIKIPEDIAWELCOMECRAPMORETHANNONCRAP point. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the vote of confidence, Hoary – it's much appreciated. I beg to differ, however, on the idea that exhibitions like this are routine. I only wish they were. I'm not going to pretend that I know of every exhibition of social documentary photography held in the Australia since it first started to become recognised way back when, but a very quick check on Google produced an astonishing result. A search on "documentary photography australia exhibition" produces the article we're talking about as the first result, which obviously suggests that exhibitions like this are rather unusual, at least in this part of the world. And that's before you start narrowing it down to exhibitions that are ambitious enough to attempt a 30-year retrospective dedicated to Australia's best work in the field. Something else that astonished me: neither the In Our Time exhibition nor Manchester's book get a mention on Wikipedia. I'll try to get round to those at some point. ... added by BlueThird at 06:36/06:37, 30 May 2011
  • I'm sorry, I expressed myself poorly. I meant something along the lines of: exhibitions of this degree of interest to somebody are routine. (Or so I guessed; I don't know for sure.) I did not want to suggest that Australian exhibitions this significant of photography, let alone those of what might be called social documentary photography, are routine. Even before I came across this AfD, I had good reason to think that they weren't. ¶ In general, photographs (whether prints from darkroom or inkjet printer, or reproductions in books etc) are poorly represented in WP. Any historian of photography could name a lot of photo exhibitions that were important for bringing new light on this, revaluating that; but WP will tell you far more about any episode of Family Guy than about any photo exhibition. -- Hoary ( talk) 10:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The rewritten article now has an adequate level of citations. PRL42 ( talk) 16:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I don't see strong enough arguments to delete. WP:GNG? Naah, with citations, it looks respectable enough. Tony (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Rewritten article clearly presents proof of notability and non-trivial coverage. Qrsdogg ( talk) 14:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Michelle Chang

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

Not notable person. Does not meet the criteria for notable academic. Mootros ( talk) 00:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - No significant assertion of notability. Carrite ( talk) 00:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 00:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Would the nominator care to give us his views on the Google Scholar results for M C Y Chang, under which name the subject publishes. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC). reply
  • Comment - That information does improve the landscape in Googleland. What's the notability hook though? Is there an aspect of her work that is cutting edge? Carrite ( talk) 14:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. It's still pretty early in her career, but she's already getting high citation counts for her work, making a plausible case for WP:PROF#C1. The highest-cited is a paper in Nature with nearly 500 citations, but I'm less convinced by that one than by some of the others, because it has many authors with her name not in a prominent place. The variation in authors among her different works suggests to me that she has a strong independent research program going and is not just riding someone else's coattails. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. GS h index of 23, but in a very highly cited field. What does WoS say? Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC). reply
  • Keep I agree that the case can be made here that she meets WP:PROF, or is very close to doing so. Qrsdogg ( talk) 15:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Very weak keep GS has a very high rate of double counts. WoS lists 21 papers, 1163 total citations, h of 13. A few papers with very high citation counts (329, 273, 105), but she's only a junior author on those (not first, certainly not last). I don't really think she's there yet, but it looks like it won't be long. -- Crusio ( talk) 15:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Transport in Equatorial Guinea#Railways. T. Canens ( talk) 06:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Rail transport in Equatorial Guinea

Rail transport in Equatorial Guinea (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no reason for having an article which basically says that there is no rail transport (and no plans for it) in a certain country Kimdime ( talk) 12:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Redirect–As there is a link to this article in the {{Africa in topic|Rail transport in}} navbox, it would

seem logical to perform a merge/redirect to [[Transport in Equatorial Guinea#Railways]].— RJH ( talk) 15:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Merge/Redirect per RJHall. Given the presence of many other "Rail transport in X" articles it's not an unreasonable search term. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There was once a railway there and I have updated the article to include this history. Colonel Warden ( talk) 06:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Redirect per RJHall. Adding the historic fact tripled the amount of sentences in this stub but there is still more than sufficient space at Transport in Equatorial Guinea#Railways. I do not see the deletion rationale refuted by CW's expansion. -- Pgallert ( talk) 11:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with redirect per RJHall. No point in maintaining a micro-stub when the info can be adequately presented elsewhere. Title is a reasonable search term. Mjroots ( talk) 18:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Colonel Warden's research provided a worthwhile addition, but there is not really enough here to justify a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_May_24&oldid=1142637224"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 23 May 25 May >

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul II (octopus) (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is one of those "fun" AfD's where there is a clear consensus to Don't Delete, but less of a consensus as to what should be done instead. Comments below are split between Merge and Keep and make reasoned arguments for each option. There is thus No Consensus as to whether the article should be kept on its own or merged. The Talk page is the appropriate venue for further discussion. Eluchil404 ( talk) 06:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Josh Vitters

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

I am not convinced that this person meets the Wikipedia notability criteria for baseball players. He has not played at the highest level of his sport, and there do not seem to be sufficient reliable, independent sources writing about his significance in his sport. I did find some news articles about him, but they were all of the 'local sports coverage' sort. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 23:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Qworty ( talk) 00:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I'm a little surprised if he has not received enough coverage for WP:GNG, since he has been one of Baseball America's top 100 prospects for 3 years and was the #3 pick of the draft. That will usually generate some coverage (e.g., at least a BA profile in their Prospects Handbook, a story about his being drafted) and since other sources seem to have had him rated highly, it seems like there would be others. He has had a profile in the annual Baseball Prospectus for the past 3 or 4 years. Rlendog ( talk) 00:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I could be wrong. I only noticed this article because of the recently-created article about his brother. Naturally, if there is enough coverage, I don't think this should be deleted, even if it hurts his brother's feelings. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 00:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
      • I found a bunch of coverage today (for some reason, these didn't come up yesterday): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. These, combined with whatever coverage Baseball America would have provided and the coverage he received in Baseball Prospectus, should be enough to demonstrate his notability and keep (and of course used to source the article). If not, I agree with Alex that merge would be the next best resolution. Rlendog ( talk) 21:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Merge to Chicago Cubs minor league players, as it is standard practice with current minor league players with articles to merge them with their team's minor league players page, if the player himself is not worthy of an article. Alex ( talk) 08:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He has been a top 100 prospect by Baseball America 3 times, that makes him notable in my opinion.-- Yankees10 18:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per A7 & G10. MrKIA11 ( talk) 02:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

UCSD Kubiak "chinaman" issue

UCSD Kubiak "chinaman" issue (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-neutral, non-notable, current event with no long term interest, of regional interest only, orphaned, among other things. Athene cunicularia ( talk) 23:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 00:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

The Queen Project

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

This band article was prodded under A7, and the prod was removed. I've performed a wp:before search, and cannot myself find indicia of notability under wp standards, including sufficient RS coverage. Epeefleche ( talk) 23:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A well argued discussion, though a few of the comments stray from what is strictly relevant to the deletion discussion. It's a close thing, but I see the rough consensus finding that the sources are a bit thin and transitory to truly meet the GNG. The fact that a number of those supporting the keeping of the article qualifed their support as "weak" was useful in finding the consensus here.-- Kubigula ( talk) 03:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

GingerBread Lane

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

Previously deleted after AFD with advertising and conflict of interest concerns. Was worked on by a user in userspace subpage, now brought here for community consideration on whether or not it should be deleted. Procedural nom, no opinion expressed by nominator. -- Cirt ( talk) 22:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete deleted previously for lack of notability, not seeing sufficient improvement. This article was created by the owner of the display and should be deleted as spam. The subject can be adequately covered (by an editor other than the owner) in the hotel's article. Nothing here worth saving. RadioFan ( talk) 23:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I disagree about covering it in the hotel article; the display is not part of the hotel's program and has been displayed many different places in different cities. If it is deleted, it should be deleted, period. -- MelanieN ( talk) 13:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment' I'd support delete as well. -- RadioFan ( talk) 14:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment my bad, the owner didn't create the article but he/she has been hounding me on my talk page to "reconsider" my !vote here which I find pretty sleazy. That's all an aside anyway, the article doesn't meet notability guidelines and is still very spammy. Can be adequately covered in the parent article on the hotel.-- RadioFan ( talk) 00:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep The article needs to be trimmed of puffery, and it's still COI. And most of the links provided are to passing mentions or photos, rather than in-depth coverage. But IMO two of the sources supplied - the Pittsburgh Gazette and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - provide in-depth coverage from two different Reliable Sources sufficient to meet Wikipedia's requirements. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment Those links asside, I'm thinking that WP:SPAM and WP:NOTTRAVEL trump here.-- RadioFan ( talk) 14:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this mind-numbingly trivial article per WP:SPAM, WP:GNG, and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an advertising web host or a directory for extremely trivial stuff such as this. In fact, this should have been speedied off the project, since it was already deleted through AfD once before. Qworty ( talk) 00:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I had nominated it for speedy deletion but pulled it back because the article was restored by an admin and assumed the admin would turn decline the speedy. Why waste more editor/admin's time? RadioFan ( talk) 00:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment about the COI inherent in this article: In the earlier AfD discussion, and on various talk pages since then, user Kcdcchef has been very frank in stating that (a) he is the creator and owner of Gingerbread Lane and (b) he "paid and contracted" someone to rewrite this article for him. (He seemed to feel that this satisfied a Wikipedia recommendation to have it written by a "neutral third party.") IMO this does not invalidate the notability of the exhibit as demonstrated by the sources I listed above, but other editors may wish to take it into account. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per MelanieN. I have made some efforts on cutting puffery down and am still not happy with the COI issues the author has raised. However, I think that the article in its current state does pass WP:GNG, and that the author is trying hard to work within Wikipedia's guidelines even if he's been making some missteps. —Tim Pierce ( talk) 17:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per MelanieN; though the article needs to cut down on puffery so that WP:SOAP is no longer applicable to it. It is not suitable to have the article covered under Hyatt Regency Crown Center as the connection seems more historical and aside from Kansas City, GingerBread Lane has appeared in other cities, including New York, Washington, D.C., and Pittsburgh. 08OceanBeachS.D. 01:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Trivial promotional mentions in local newspapers and only 1 actual article. If a major national or international source was found then I would be in favour of keeping but at the moment it fails WP:CORPDEPTH -- wintonian talk 02:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I'll be up front and say that part of the reason I recommended keeping the article is that I think it sounds like a nice project and because I appreciate that the author was trying to work within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, and I want to encourage that. I don't dispute that the article still has notability issues. I'm applying WP:IAR here a little bit. I can see how it would go the other way. —Tim Pierce ( talk) 16:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP:SPAM, fails WP:GNG JoeSperrazza ( talk) 13:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Sourced appear to meet the GNG threshold. COI and SPAM concerns should be resolved outside of this afd.-- Pink Bull 14:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject? Yep. Looks like it meets the general notability guideline, and is presumed notable. Any issues with the article (other than copyright or severe BLP concerns) can be addressed through normal editing procedure. Buddy431 ( talk) 14:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Significant coveragein reliable sources independent of the subject? Nope. These are trivial mentions in local media, of the kind that just about any show would garner. Nothing of substance. Also delete as a matter of principle in order to stick it to the the COI editors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I think that's unfortunate. If it fails WP:GNG that's a perfectly good reason to delete, but I regret seeing "sticking it to the COI editors" as a motivation, particularly when the editors in question are actively trying to work with Wikipedia editors to do things by the book. It goes against assuming good faith and not biting the newbies. We all should do what we think is right for Wikipedia, but let's not be mean about it. —Tim Pierce ( talk) 20:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Agree with FPAS; not enough substantial 3rd party coverage. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, the coverage manages to meet WP:GNG - frankie ( talk) 23:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was  : Article has been merged as described below into the Czeslaw Niemen by Muslim lo Juheu ( talk). Non admin closure. Edgepedia ( talk) 15:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Aerolit

Note: Merged into a new, more general, section Czeslaw Niemen#Niemen's support bands, per discussion below. Muslim lo Juheu ( talk) 17:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

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

This band article was prodded under A7, and the prod was removed without any reflection of meeting A7 prod criteria. I've performed a wp:before search, and cannot myself find indicia of notability under wp standards, including sufficient RS coverage. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche ( talk) 22:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Abysmally fails WP:MUSIC. Qworty ( talk) 00:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - Per above. Monterey Bay ( talk) 02:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article have references. This is not about some garage or dorm band. This is part pf Polish music history. This is a 1970s support band for a Polish celebrity singer Czesław Niemen created by Niemen himself. "Aerolit+Niemen" has 30 hits even in google books. All three listed albums of the band have their wikipedia articles. And at least one of the albums was reissued in 2003 by Polskie Radio. Muslim lo Juheu ( talk) 03:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
PS. The nomination contains false statement "without any reflection of meeting A7 prod criteria". I followed the instructions as stated in the big deletion banner and explained why A7 is invalid in my edit summary. I would ask colleague Epeefleche to be more respectful to colleagues when describing their actions. Muslim lo Juheu ( talk) 04:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The reason given in the PROD removal was "this was not a garage or student dorm band. This was a support band of a Polish celebrity, with released albums in 1970s". Being a non-garage-band and non-student-dorm band are not sufficient to pass A7. Nor is the asserted "support band of a Polish celebrity" or "released albums" sufficient. If those are what Muslim to Juheu relies on, they fall short of what we need.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 15:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I note that since Muslim's "keep !vote", he has below written "Makes sense" to a merge proposal (perhaps that reflects a change in his !vote from keep to merge?), has merged the brief content into that article, and has (perhaps technically, if we are to be bureaucratic, a bit prematurely) merged the articles. A merge is fine with me as well, for the record.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Satisfies WP:BAND 1 [7] (some of the gbooks hits provided by Muslim lo Juheu are to the eponymous album rather than the group per se but still), probably 2 (for [8]), 5 if you count the posthumous album of a live recording [9], and definitely 6. For 6 there's obviously Niemen himself (think a Polish Bob Dylan or something), but also Piotr Dziemski [10], and Jan Błędowsk [11] were/are independently notable (as jazz musicians). The only thing is that I think the article title should probably be moved to Niemen Aerolit (band). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Marek, "Niemen Aerolit" is album. The musical group was called "Aerolit". In fact, I am not sure that the album was actually originally named "Niemen Aerolit". It is just written so on the album cover, which may as well be read as "Niemen. Aerolit." It does read in English as "Niemen's Aerolit", but I am sure you know that in Polish "Niemen Aerolit" is an extragrammatical collocation ("Niemen's aerolit" would be "aerolit Niemena"). Muslim lo Juheu ( talk) 15:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I have seen both the group and the album referred to as "Niemen Aerolit", sometimes "Niemen-Aerolit". I'm not 100% sure what is the best title for article on the band. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Czesław Niemen. No indication the band are notable independently of him, with all their albums also in his discography. If its members are independently notable then they should have their own articles.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 09:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I agree that the band is hardly notable independently of Niemen, but the subject is clearly separable from the article about Niemen per se. And wikipedia is not paper or book encyclopedia, so that we may split articles into reasonable pieces. Muslim lo Juheu ( talk) 15:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Splits are usually only needed when an article is too long, and Niemen's article is far from that. In particular the band is not mentioned at all in the article; adding the information would improve it and make it more likely to be read. The current article then becomes a redirect to where all the information can be found.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 15:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Makes sense. I didn't pay attention that the en: Niemen article was neglected. Muslim lo Juheu ( talk) 17:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Merged into a new, more general, section Czeslaw Niemen#Niemen's support bands. Muslim lo Juheu ( talk) 17:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 15:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Asian Medical Institute, Kyrgyzstan

Asian Medical Institute, Kyrgyzstan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced for years. Not notable: I can't find any reliable secondary sources about the subject in google, there's no mention about it in news, books, google scholar. Article claims that it is in "the W.H.O list of recognized Medical Institutions", but it isn't, which brings into doubt the article's factual accuracy. X7q ( talk) 19:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 12:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 12:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 12:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No reliably-sourced verification that this entity exists. Not on WHO list dated 2007 (contrary to claim in article). Not in this online directory of medical schools. Not mentioned in this 2009 report about health systems in the country (the report does mention other medical training institutions in the country). -- Orlady ( talk) 14:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - medical schools are notable and it is indeed listed in the notable directory Avicenna Directories, here (put 'Asian Medical Institute' in the search box and scroll down to 'Kyrgyzstan'. The Institute's website is here. I can't, obviously, rule out that this is some form of elaborate hoax but at present it does indeed seem genuine, particularly in the light of this. TerriersFan ( talk) 01:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • It is not notable per wikipedia notability guidelines. The directory you mention only contains contact information about this school, which is trivial information and does not establish notability. -- X7q ( talk) 01:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • WP:ORG says "If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There are no such sources in the article, therefore delete. -- X7q ( talk) 01:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Well, for starters your implication that this is a hoax looks ill-founded. Secondly, medical schools that award degrees have long been considered notable. Of course the page needs sources but that may require research in regional sources. To avoid systemic bias we must not assume that the absence of Google sources in English equate to no sources existing. We don't delete articles that don't yet have reliable sources; the ones we delete are those which are unlikely to have such sources. Where, as here, the page is on a notable subject we tag for improvement. This is the way we develop the encyclopaedia. TerriersFan ( talk) 01:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Congrats to TerriersFan for finding that source. I continue to be very skeptical about the existence of this institution, notwithstanding its listing in one ostensibly reliable directory. I would not call it a hoax, but I still think it may be a scam. I must confess that I was skeptical about the idea that one of the world's poorest and most unstable countries is the site of a first-class English-language medical school catering exclusively to foreigners, but I have found evidence that some of the other medical schools in the country are catering to foreigners, primarily from Kashmir. However, if this school was established in 2004 (as claimed) and has all the approvals it lists, why isn't it listed in the 2007 WHO directory, which lists four other medical schools in Kyrgyzstan and includes text that says "Update through 31 December 2007 - The Government of the Kyrgyz Republic has asked WHO to list the following medical school: Osh State University Medical Institute"? This 2009 report about some serious public health challenges facing Kyrgyzstan includes mention of Kyrgyz State Medical Academy and the Kyrgyz State Medical Institute of Post‐Graduate Training and Continuous Education, which are two of the four schools on the 2007 WHO list and the only two schools on the Institute for International Medical Education list. The source linked on the Asian Medical Institute website as evidence of Kyrgyz government recognition is a page on http://www.university-directory.eu, which is not a reliable source -- and most definitely is not a Kyrgyz government source. The listing in the Avicenna directory cannot be discounted, but the Avicenna directory does not identify the source of the information, and I think it is possible that the Avicenna people have been scammed. -- Orlady ( talk) 02:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • keep now adequately sourced. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant talk 22:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete as spam(?) original creator at the time inserted links to the Asian Medical Institute into many irrelevant articles [12] for example; Football Federation of Kyrgyz Republic & Postage stamps and postal history of Kyrgyzstan either way if the WHO don't seem to know about it and there are no media sources (let alone reliable ones) it fails WP:GNG existence (does it?) whether a medical school or not does not infer notability WP:NRVE. wintonian talk 03:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - it is certainly not spam in it present form since it simply states the facts. The WHO do know about it; it is just that their directory has been taken over by the University of Copenhagen. TerriersFan ( talk) 14:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Harden, New South Wales. I'm extrapolating slightly in that there is a meta consensus that being listed doesn't confer notability so the arguments suggesting a redirect are the most policy based and also work with the general way that we handle barely notable/perma-stubs in an appropriatly aggregated location Spartaz Humbug! 15:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Beggan Beggan, New South Wales

Beggan Beggan, New South Wales (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Beggan Beggan is an unbounded locality within the bounded locality of Harden, New South Wales about which there is nothing to say beyond the current stub. A redirect to Harden will suffice. Crusoe8181 ( talk) 11:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope ( talk) 12:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SK#1: "nominator...fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Colonel Warden ( talk) 06:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete 1 gnews hit back in 1887, [13]. LibStar ( talk) 02:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, verifiable, real place. Additionally, the "Beggan Beggan Homestead and Group buildings" are on the heritage register ( [14]), so there's room for further expansion. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 04:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC). reply
Comment (by nominator) as mentioned in the nomination it does exist but is an unbounded locality within the bounded locality of Harden, New South Wales about which there is nothing to say. If anyone feels there is an article needed about Beggan Beggan Homestead and Group buildings (not a locality) then it may (in the fullness of time) be created as such Crusoe8181 ( talk) 11:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC). reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant talk 22:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Nothing of note there, hardly any Google hits and part of Harden. It's rather difficult to see how this article could be expanded beyond a single sentence. -- wintonian talk 03:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. per Lankiveil and the provided source.-- Pink Bull 14:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Christian Vitters

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

This person does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. He did not play at the highest level of his sport (he was a minor league, not a major league, baseball player), and does not seem to have achieved notability as an actor or as a model either. I searched for reliable independent sources but did not find them, and the sources in the article are mostly press releases. Prod removed by creator. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 21:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Delete Per nom. Likely a conflict of interest account, with no evidence of notability in any of the careers mentioned. 99.12.243.70 ( talk) 21:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete. Good catch! Looks like WP:AUTO and WP:SPAM from a WP:SPA. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:ATHLETE. To have failed first as an athlete, then as an actor, then as a model does not confer notability. Qworty ( talk) 00:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 00:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Odaine Démar

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league, therefore failing WP:NSPORT. No reason was given for contesting Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 00:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Ján Andráš

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

Non-notable football coach. Not mentioned in any reliable secondary sources that I can find. The "Teams managed" information lists him as having managed nothing more significant than a high school football team. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series

AfDs for this article:
CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional weapon - fails WP:GNG as no significant third party coverage in reliable sources. Content cannot be merged as the list of weapons in the series was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons. Anthem of joy ( talk) 20:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The fictional weapon does not meet the general notability guideline, it is a plot-only description of a fictional work and the article is unreferenced so there is no verifiability to presume that anything is worth keeping. Jfgslo ( talk) 15:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG no reliable sources, most hits on Yahoo are Wiki type projects. Also there is no real world aspect as described in WP:FICT. -- wintonian talk 04:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Can't find any non-trivial reliable source coverage. Probably better suited for a Wikia project. Qrsdogg ( talk) 16:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No outside coverage, no notability, the article does not have any references and it should not be on wikipedia, a fan site maybe but not here if it can not meet the guidelines. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. WP:NOT mentions the idea of weapons lists in terms of games, but it really is good advice for all toys and fiction. In general, these end up being WP:DIRECTORY style databases with very little context, and tend to run afoul of the same issue as WP:NOTPLOT. The spirit of policy calls for deleting this material, as does previous consensus at similar AFDs (see above). But if this is disputed, it might be worth further clarification (and discussion if necessary) at WP:NOT. Shooterwalker ( talk) 01:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. There is a consensus below that the sources available are sufficient to support an article. Eluchil404 ( talk) 06:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Erasmus Darwin Barlow

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

Although the person lived and his life was documented the article does not assert his notability. Most of the information is about his relations, and the rest about his professional associations. There is nothing about what he did in his life to make him worthy of an encyclopedia article. BigJim707 ( talk) 19:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per multiple Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria, specifically no.3 ("The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)") as FZS, no. 6 ("The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.") Secretary of ZSL, no. 7 ("The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.") vice chairman of the Mental Health Research Fund, chairman of Cambridge Instrument Co Ltd. Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 20:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep obviously. This is another stupid nomination of a perfectly fine article. I do not see why someone who happens to have notable relatives needs to have additional notability in order to fulfil you liberal idealism that someone can only gain notability through their own actions. But of course, the article is going to mention the relatives! But look, he was a Fellow of both the Zoological Society of London AND the Royal College of Psychiatrists. There is an article on each and every one of the other secretaries of the Zoological Society of London; secretary is a pretty significant position within that organisation. Furthermore, the WP:GNG (and WP:RS for that matter) is satisfied by an obituary in the BMJ. I'd hardly think that the BMJ - that is the journal of the British Medical Association, which is read by probably most of the physicians in the country, and many outside, would publish an obituary of someone that they did not consider to have contributed to medicine. Have you read the BMJ article? If not, how can you assert via the liberal use of innuendo that he has no significance? He also appears, btw, in Who's Who in Finance and Industry (1963 edn) (and I strongly suspect if you look at a copy of Debrett's from the same period, you'll find him there too, not that looking things up a common past-time amongst Wikipedia hacks). Flying Fische ( talk) 20:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There is not one word about anything Barlow may have contributed to any academic field. Google scholar throws up nothing of significance [15]. The genealogical material is irrelevant, since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The rest of the article reads like a CV, with much of it in fact being nothing more than a WP:COPYVIO from the BMJ obituary [16]. For Wikipedia purposes, notability is supposed to be indicated by a wealth of WP:RS, not just a reference or two to establish a tenuous toehold for WP:PROF. Where is the WP:RS for his scholarly contributions that should have been accumulating throughout his lifetime? Instead of that wealth of information, the only thing we have is his obituary--in other words, he made no impact at all apart from dying. Certainly the intent and spirit of WP:N and WP:BIO are that notability is a result of a lifetime of accomplishments that have been noted consistently through WP:RS--and not simply an occasion for a wikilawerying toehold for having "satisfied" one of a dozen requirements for WP:PROF. Finally, it should be noted that the notability standards of Wikipedia are not the same as what might pass for notability or significance in the outside world. For instance, the world might consider him notable for being a descendant of Charles Darwin. But it takes a lot more than that to satisfy WP guidelines. Qworty ( talk) 21:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria states "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable" and I note that he meets three. This is not Wikilawyering, this is a clear application of a clear guideline. If you disagree with the guideline, get a consensus to overturn it. Oh, and no-one is suggesting that he is "notable for being a descendant of Charles Darwin", so why bring it up? Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 21:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The guideline you yourself cite clearly states "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, AS SUBSTANTIATED THROUGH RELIABLE SOURCES" (emphasis mine). Where are the WP:RS substantiating notability here? And please note that sources is a plural. Qworty ( talk) 21:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
user:Qworty has basically been going around trying to get me permablocked, and delete any valid contributions for no apparent reason. Perhaps he should try doing something useful for a change. Flying Fische ( talk) 22:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
An obituary in the British Medical Journal is a reliable source. The ZSL is a reliable source for its own activities. The Spectator is a reliable source. Plural. Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 06:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: fails WP:PROF criteria #3 ( Category:Fellows of the Zoological Society of London does not demonstrate that organisation is "highly selective", at least in terms of zoological contribution -- selectivity on social standing may be another issue, also it appears to be a charitable/conservation society, rather than an principally-academic one), #6 (was only the secretary of the ZSC, not the president, and it's charitable-not-academic, per above) #7 (appointments are not contributions -- and those listed are generally more administrative than research-orientated). Also fails 'General notes': "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." I would further note that the article fails to articulate any specific contribution to either psychiatry or zoology. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 01:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Being charitable is a legal status perfectly compatible with being academic or scholarly. The ZSL is a scientific research organisation as well, through its division The Institute of Zoology. The Secretary is effectively the CEO of the organisation, he doesn't just open the post. Why on earth do you think social standing is the criterion for Fellowship? Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 06:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The Zoological Society of London (sometimes known by the abbreviation ZSL) is a charity devoted to the worldwide conservation of animals and their habitats.

—  Zoological Society of London
It is primarily a conservation charity NOT a scholarly society. That it has a research division DOES NOT make it "a scientific research organisation". Most national governments also have scientific research organisations -- but that does not make national governments a scientific research organisation themselves. Peruse Category:Fellows of the Zoological Society of London. ("Why on earth" would you ask such a stupid question without having done so?) It is absolutely littered with titled gentlemen of little scientific prominence. No, the president of a club or company is the CEO, the club or company secretary is concerned with administrative/procedural/regulatory compliance, not club/company direction. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Funnily enough I did peruse Category:Fellows of the Zoological Society of London, and it is uncivil of you to assume that I had not, and to call me stupid for not, as you wrongly guessed, having done so. The "litter" of titled gentlemen consists of
So here we have 9 out of 101 titled, two BLP whom I won't discuss, one with no recorded scientific contribution, four with some scientific credibility and one actually ennobled for services to science. Please do not assume that having a title makes it impossible to also be a scientist.
Now let's turn to the nature of ZSL. That it has a research division makes it an organisation that engages in scientific research: "Our scientists in the laboratory and field, animal management teams at both zoos and our veterinarians contribute wide-ranging skills and experience to both practical conservation and the scientific research that underpins this work." "ZSL's Institute of Zoology offers research training through PhD studentships, and hosts undergraduate and masters level research projects conducted as part of our own MSc courses and courses at other institutions." "Lord Zuckerman, then Secretary of ZSL, raised funds from two medical foundations to found laboratories where scientists would be employed by ZSL and undertake research." "The Institute of Zoology is a world renowned research centre working at the cutting edge of conservation biology, specialising in scientific issues relevant to preserving animal species and their habitats."
Finally, the secretary. From the Independent's obituary of Sir Barry Cross, Secretary 1988-1992: The post of secretary is honorary and under the society's constitution carries the responsibility for the day-to-day management of the society's affairs. It is in effect the chief executive post without either the remuneration or the trappings of high office to go with it.
You may wish to reconsider some of your remarks above. Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 17:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
(i) Bedford: conservation NOT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (my whole point above), Grey: ornothology was only a hobby, and the (rather thin) material on that aspect of his life (which makes no mention of serious scientific research) is wholly unsourced -- I would therefore take the 'distinction' with a touch of salt, Powys: again no indication of significant scientific research (just a large aviary, and some books of drawings), Fiennes-Clinton: no scientific involvement mentioned, McAlpine: no scientific involvement mentioned, Peyton: no scientific involvement mentioned, Hay: collected specimens & and a book privately published, but again no indication of significant scientific research, Wigram: no scientific involvement mentioned.
(ii)You are making a wholly illogical claim: that Y possesses X does not make Y X. That I possess two hands does not make me a hand. That the US Government possesses an army does not make it an army. And so it follows that the ZSL possesses a division that happens to be a "scientific research organisation" DOES NOT MAKE THE ZSL ITSELF' a "scientific research organisation".
(iii) The description of secretary you have given would appear to equate to Chief operating officer, who typically reports to the CEO. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The issue about Fellows is moot, as it appears I was wrong about that status.
The issue about conservation: the ZSL's own words quoted above make it clear that as an organisation it regards itself as doing scientific research as an integral part of its mission.
The issue about Secretary: I have provided a reliable source which supports my exact words.
I don't see what more I can say. Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 06:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I was asked on my talk page by User:Flying Fische to have a look at this article. I wouldn't normally respond to a note like this, but this is the sort of article and AfD I would work on if I had happened to notice it, so I am going to take a look at this, while disclosing here the reason I became aware of the article and the deletion discussion. Carcharoth ( talk) 21:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Having now looked at this, my thoughts so far are:
    (1) The two main notable aspects (so far) are having an obituary published in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) and being Secretary of the Zoological Society of London (this is, as Sergeant Cribb points out, one of the main positions at the ZSL, the other being President). Having said that, he doesn't have an entry in "Who was Who", so he isn't that notable.
    (2) The article does need a bit of rewriting to move away from the language used in the BMJ obituary and to reduce the reliance on genealogical material from Burke's. Though repeating the same facts as presented in those two sources will be unavoidable to some extent, some more rephrasing would be best here, as well as bringing in some other sources. The phrase "enthusiastic founding member" in particular is something that needs to be put in quotation marks.
    (3) There are some more sources if you search Google Scholar and Google Books carefully, but not too much there. It would help to locate another obituary if any others were published. I did find his marriage mentioned in The Times (The Times, Friday, Apr 08, 1938; pg. 19; Issue 47964; col C), plus a radio programme called 'The Dangers of Health' that he presented in 1956 (The Times, Saturday, Aug 11, 1956; pg. 4; Issue 53607; col D). The Times also mentions a couple of the companies he was involved with, such as the engineering company George Kent and Dataprep (The Times, Thursday, Sep 04, 1969; pg. 18; Issue 57656; col F). There is also a picture of Erasmus Barlow in a fairly long article about the takeover of Cambridge Scientific Instrument Company in 1968 (The Times, Friday, Jun 21, 1968; pg. 29; Issue 57283; col D). It seems this Erasmus Darwin was also Master (in around 1976-77) of the Worshipful Company of Scientific Instrument Makers, one of those guilds you get in London that holds dinners (The Times, Saturday, Jun 04, 1977; pg. 16; Issue 60021; col D). There is also an article in The Times that says it was one Erasmus Barlow (consultant psychiatrist at St Thomas' Hospital, London) who examined Harold Challenor and gave evidence about his condition at the Challenor Inquiry (The Times, Wednesday, Oct 28, 1964; pg. 7; Issue 56154; col D). He also gave a lecture at the Royal Institute of Philosophy on 12 February 1958 titled 'The Validity of Hallucinations' (The Times, Wednesday, Feb 12, 1958; pg. 9; Issue 54073; col A). There are also some hits on PubMed, and another picture of him in Medical science and technology at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School: the first 50 years, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL VOLUME 291 21-28 DECEMBER 1985, pp.1771-1779. The picture is figure 5 on page 1773 and is from 1945. All a bit scattered, but my view is that the existence of at least one obituary is sufficient to justify bringing the disparate threads together (if there was no obituary, that would be a different story).
  • So as I said, all in all, I think there is enough here for an article. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think I need to withdraw my argument based on FZSL. Neither Hrafn nor I seem to have spotted this page which suggests that Fellowship is not as prestigious as I has thought. My comments on the position of Secretary stand. So, we may be down to two of the criteria for notability. Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 21:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Since you are withdrawing your argument, please place strike-out print over the text, so that we'll know exactly which comments you are withdrawing. Thank you. Qworty ( talk) 22:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. I'm having difficulty finding good sources about him other than the BMJ obit, but I think that one may be enough by itself. Most of the argument above seems to boil down to "he doesn't pass this one special case, therefore he's not notable" which is obviously not good logic. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Article asserts notability, a number of important associations, and individual notability looks reasonably solid. JFW |  T@lk 21:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Obits suffice. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC). reply
  • Keep, passes WP:GNG per Carcharoth's recap of the sources. The encyclopedia is better with this information than without it.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 03:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep BMJ obituary and a fellow of some well renowned organisations, although the article could do with some detail on his research papers. -- wintonian talk 04:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Carcharoth. Qrsdogg ( talk) 16:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 15:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

List of Miss Supranational titleholders

List of Miss Supranational titleholders (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ordinarily, I would have no problem with a lengthy pageant titleholders list being given its own article to save space in the main pageant article, but this pageant has only two winners so far, the list adds no further detail (the graph is simply copy and pasted from the main article), and both this page and the main page have no reliable 3rd party sources to demonstrate notability to begin with.  Mbinebri  talk ← 19:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Completely redundant to the main article. -- Whpq ( talk) 14:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hassanal Abdullah

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

After I've encountered to this article several questions strikes in my mind:

  • Is Hassanal Abdullah a really notable poet acc. to WP:BIO ?
  • It is a BLP. Do it meet WP:BLP ?
  • Are the sources cited are reliable and evident enough for this article to be kept?

Answer of none are positive to me. Thus, I have to ask, why this page shall not be deleted?
Some notes

  • The only additive editor on this article is Aqute31
  • Only contributions of Aqute31 in Wikipedia is on this article or about Hassanal Abdullah.
  • Aqute31 offended almost all other editors' efforts and ironically defined some constructive efforts as vandalism
  • Newly involved editor on the same matter is Auronee. His/her POV strangely co-insides with Aqute31's
  • Whenever maintenance tags are placed on the article, they are removed.
  • This article has not been brought into attention of WP:BENGAL » nafSadh did say 18:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Ask yourself whether you are motivated to propose this deletion by your own understanding or just trying to help your friend ragib, who previously managed to delete an article on the subject.
Some of the questions you asked do not even make sense. There are more than 30 references here and I am sure you can find thousand references about the poet elsewhere. So, there is no question of nobility or reference or even "vandalism". You might be able to delete things, but it is hard to create one.-- Shabda2009 ( talk) 20:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • delete: no evidence of notability William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I looked through the huge list of references and they are mostly useless for establishing notability. The only item that contributes towards establishing notability is the VOA item. -- Whpq ( talk) 14:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Ben Enoch

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

Non-notable per Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Golf

  • Delete - notable only for his early death. Tewapack ( talk) 19:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. — EJBH ( talk) 18:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect. I have implemented the redirect to Glossary_on_fencing#Blade_Work as Kaligelos suggests but it may be retargeted if there is a consensus to do do. Eluchil404 ( talk) 07:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Touché

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

Simply a dictionary definition of the term (dicdef). It's covered perfectly well at wiktionary and Fencing#Terminology, it's currently a content fork. Encyclopedia articles are not supposed to define a term two different ways, and it does this because it's not encyclopedic. Even if it only defined it in one way it's still only a dictionary definition of the term. In an encyclopedia like Wikipedia we, wherever possible, merge terminology into the main topic because it puts the term into full context, which makes it more coherent and useful. Rememberway ( talk) 18:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm calling for MERGE to fencing or outright DELETE. Rememberway ( talk) 20:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Oddly, the nominator has never edited a fencing article before now; indeed, he has been arguing, to no particular effect, that our titles must use only nouns, sufficiently so to revert-war the policy page. This article came up as an example, and he is now attempting to merge or delete the evidence against his fringe view. Speedy close as frivolous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that this can be speedily closed. Even if we agree that there's no need for an article with this title--about which I'm agnostic--we'd still have to put in a redirect to Fencing#Terminology because it's a plausible search term. Thus there is no prospect of making this into a redlink, and the nomination fails WP:BEFORE.— S Marshall T/ C 20:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
With all due respect, I already user merged it, but Pmanderson unmerged it again. Rememberway ( talk) 20:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The merger cost the encyclopedia information, to no point; but that is for discussion on its talk page; this is not a solution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
And merge is a perfectly respectable result in AFDs anyway. Rememberway ( talk) 20:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
It's a result of Keep, since admins don't have to do anything. Should this nomination also be closed as withdrawn? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
No, it's a result of MERGE, but then again you didn't know you weren't supposed to blank AFD tags, and accuse people of 'vandalism' in the subject line, so I guess I that's par for your course. Rememberway ( talk) 21:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

4 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Fencing#Terminology. Other than the one-line non-fencing use of the term, which truly is Wiktionary material, everything here is already there. This probably meets speedy keep criterion 1 on a literal reading (as the nominator does not desire deletion), and I'm often a pretty big advocate for closing these things out early when possible. However, since at least one past redirection was reverted, there's probably no harm done in employing this venue to judge consensus, since it's already here. Serpent's Choice ( talk) 21:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Fencing#Terminology per Serpent's Choice. And yes, merge is indeed a normal outcome at AfD. And yes, a WP:MERGE proposal process does exist to gather consensus over controversial merges - frankieMR ( talk) 23:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - Leaning towards Redirect... The term is commonly used beyond just fencing circles (although those usages derive from fencing). I think there is at least the potential for expansion as a stand alone topic for an article. Blueboar ( talk) 01:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but merge to Fencing#Terminology. The concept warrants a pointer to the fencing article where it's discussed. However, there's nothing further needed about the use of the word. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - This is probably the first French word I ever learned via endless reruns of Touché, Pussy Cat!, but I don't think a laundry list of "in popular culture" references would make for a very good article. Tarc ( talk) 13:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I agree we don't want a "laundry list"... but adding a few well selected and notable examples would improve the article. Blueboar ( talk) 03:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Merge is a reasonable solution: I see no way the article may grow beyond dicdef. Kaligelos ( talk) 17:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • COMMENT: In fact I've just found a proper target of merge/redirect: Glossary on fencing and performed the merge. Kaligelos ( talk) 00:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Bryan Kreutz

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

WP:NOTABILITY; Sources are all databases, self-created pages, and pages from his employers. Google search brings up same kind of sources, nothing denoting notability. Nat Gertler ( talk) 18:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTABILITY; An additional News category Press release source has been found to verify the Validity and notability of this Article to remain on wikipedia. See http://www.pr.com/press-release/204624 Bryankreutz 77 ( talk) 23:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC) User talk:Bryankreutz 77) 23:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

A press release is generally not considered to denote notability. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 02:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTABILITY; Two additional references added one is a newspaper article on Bryan Kreutz Childhood in St.Louis, the second is on the existence of Rescued Nation TV. Contesting Deletion for Page Bryan Kreutz I highly recommend this page be kept. I came on here to find information on the St.Louis born Directors and Producers, this page has been useful. Cleanup it needs, deletion it doesn't. There have been multiple news article references supporting the person and the St.Louis event inspired TV show Rescued Nation that he directs/produces/writes for. Bryankreutz 77 ( talk) 23:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC) User talk:Bryankreutz 77) 10:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Unless you're claiming that it was notable that Kreutz had a bicycle decades ago, the mere mention of his name in an article doesn't contribute to significant notability. The existence of Rescued Nation TV is not in question, but even if the show was notable, that does not make Kretuz notable; notability is not inherited. As for referring to Kreutz as "he", either you are Bryan Kreutz, born in 1977, in which case the proper term is "I" and you should admit that your work on this is promotional; or you're not him, in which case you should review the Wikipedia policy about using someone's real name as your user name, as you're in violation of it. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTABILITY; Page has been written by another wikipedia user. Here is another additional reference added to the article titled "KJSL" at Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia with Bryan Kreutz referenced numerous times as a producer. The list of verifiable, substantive sources, and notable reference material has been contributed by multiple users to the page per the original discussion request. Unless a theme of bias is now present for deletion there is no cause for deletion to the article or references made thereunto. Bryankreutz 77 ( talk) 13:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC) User talk:Bryankreutz 77) 10:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Do not use articles from Wikipedia or from websites that mirror its content as sources. You have been unable to provide reliable sources indicating your notability. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 19:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTABILITY;This article is not an autobiography it was written by me Momtvproducer and has another reliable reference in the acceptable category for graduate at his College broadcast center. (see reference 1 on the Bryan Kreutz article) For example the wikipedia article page titled "Eric Kripke" has only 3 references 1 is an alumni reference website which is the same as Bryan Kreutz's reference to his alumni at Broadcast Center college. Eric Kripke has only one external link which is identical to the imdb.com link for Bryan Kreutz. The article has sufficient references in comparison to other articles in the same Director/Producer/Writer category of articles. User:Momtvproducer ( talk) 10:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC) — Momtvproducer ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Eric Kripke satisfied a range of notability criteria at WP:FILMMAKER which there is no evidence that Kreutz approaches. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Sources are as follows: Self published sources, Primary source interview, Wikipedia page, Social website bio, and a press release. None of the sources are reliable sources. Seems like a self-published auto biography.--v/r - T P 15:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: little-to-no evidence of independent sourcing. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Non-notable at this point in his career; the only sources found are self-provided (e.g. IMDB). The article's claims seem unrealistic and overblown; for example he lists himself as a "writer" for Revolution 618 even though it is a talk show. There is even a link at the bottom of the page for Bryan Kreutz! Nothing about his career was found at Google News Archive - just the unrelated story about an incident in his childhood. I note there is a Wikipedia article for the TV program Revolution 618, but in a quick glance I seriously doubt if that program is notable either. It seems to have aired only on local cable. Somebody might want to take a look at that as well. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

English Shieldwall

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

Non-notable subject. Article cites no reliable secondary sources. Unable to find sources to improve the article. NotFromUtrecht ( talk) 18:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. No third party reliable sources found. In the absence of such this group fails WP:V and WP:N. RichardOSmith ( talk) 18:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ( talk) 19:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Directional Michigan

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

The article has had two previous AFDs, where no-consensus was reached for both. It is not an encyclopedic term, which is a neologism and is not notable. The references given all talk about uses OF the term, not articles ABOUT the term. If you remove all the references from the article (which are just uses of the term), then all you have is an article that says, "Directional Michigan is made up of CMU, EMU and WMU". The rest of the article as it currently exists is a mixture of Wikipedia:original research and Wikipedia:synthesis. — X96lee15 ( talk) 18:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Convert to disambiguation. 'Nuff said. De Fault Ryan 19:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
If this is to be retained as a non-article -- and I'm not suggesting that it should be! -- I think a redirect to Michigan MAC Trophy might be better than a disambiguation. cmadler ( talk) 20:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Disambiguation cannot be used to circumvent WP:NEO. Per discussion at Wikiproject Disambiguation, decomposing a set of items in a group is not appropriate for a disambiguation page. We wouldn't have a disambiguation page saying "United States of America refers to Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, ...". A disambiguation page identifies different topics that can be referred to by the same name, like multiple "Joe Smiths". — Bagumba ( talk) 20:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is a non-encyclopedic term used to disparage CMU, EMU and WMU and their respective sports programs. Simply because the term exists, does not mean that it should be included in an encyclopedia, nor should it be included as a redirect or disambiguation page. It's kind of funny if you attended the University of Michigan or Michigan State, I suppose, not so much if you attended one of these so-called "directional" schools. By way of example, some southeastern college football fans still think it's cute to refer to the University of Florida as "FU" (get it? "f---, you!"), and you can find internet references to "FU." Does that mean that "FU" deserves its own Wikipedia article? Clearly not. If this article were a BLP, this would not even be a close call. Wikipedia is not a fan blog, and it should not provide a platform for the fans of one college sports program to mock the sports program and fans of other universities. Let's show some dignity, and DELETE this article. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 19:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Response this isn't a bunch of fans coming up with something, although many fans do use the term. This is a term used by major sports media outlets. And I disagree that the term is used to disparge any schools or their sports programs. There is no mocking being done in this article and I think you are reading much, much more into it than is there.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Reply to Paul Paul, as one of the Project's biggest proponents of articles about the mid-majors, FCS, Division II and Division III football subjects, I am really quite surprised that you would fight so hard to keep this crappy article. This term itself serves no purpose but to distinguish between UM, MSU (the so-called "name schools") and CMU, EMU and WMU (the so-called "directional schools"), and subordinate the latter universities and their sports programs to the former. As for the article, you can put lipstick on the pig and dress it up with neutral language and citations to a certain ESPN "bottom ten" column and the occasional SI reference, but sadly it will always be a pig. And, frankly, it is an embarrassingly ugly pig to have in our front yard. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • You don't like it check. Got it. I figured that out. That's not a reason to delete.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • But what reason is there to keep? If you can find one source that doesn't just use this term, but actually discusses its history/origin/etc., I'll gladly switch to keep. Nolelover It's almost football season! 14:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Asked and answered the reasons to keep are simple: it is a notable term, widely used among various sports media outlets nationally, regionally, and locally. In virtually every article that uses the term, it defines the term in the context of the article. The term has been used for many years and is not just a "catch-phrase-of-the-month" and has been adopted by sportswriters and fans alike.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 12:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • See below post. I realize its not just a "catch-phrase", which is why I don't really think WP:NEO applies. Still, Fo' shizzle has also been used by many years by even more people - look at the article. Nolelover It's almost football season! 14:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I was looking for another word that has also been used for many years, has been adopted by many, isn't a catch-phrase, but the article is just a soft redirect to Wiktionary. There are better examples, but that was that best I could think of off the top of my head. Nolelover It's almost football season! 21:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Reply to Nolelover Greetings, NL. I haven't bumped into you before on the Project, and I assume that your comments are intended in good faith. Let's look at another example closer to your heart: "Free Shoes University." The term was certainly intended to disparage the FSU program, but it was more than just a smart-ass comment—it was an actual tempest in a teapot scandal in Tallahassee with a real history for which a rival coach provided a name. It was a very real and still notable event. There will literally be hundreds of reliable references to the term on the internet and Google News Archive, many of them with an explanation of the underlying scandal and the involved parties and the NCAA sanctions that followed (far better articles than any cited so far for "Directional Michigan"). Do we, as WikiProject College Football, really want to encourage the creation of such articles? In addition to the arguments based WP:SYN, WP:NOTDIC, and WP:NEO, I am also making a plea for the dignity and neutrality of WP College Football. Every university and its sports program deserves to be treated with respect, and not have neutral-sounding articles written about its various nicknames. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Follow-up Comment to NL FYI, I just discovered that some smart-ass created a "Free Shoes University" redirect to the main FSU article in 2006. If you file an AfD for the redirect, I will gladly support it. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 22:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Heh, I know the whole "Free Shoes" scandal story, and I understand your point. Here's the thing; I do support a Free Shoes redirect to FSU. A redirect going to the article on the actual scandal would be better, but I'm sure there is some clueless individual who will hear and search that term. I think the same way about this article *Note that i !voted redirect before delete*. Obviously, I live in the southeast where it isn't used, but from what I saw, it isn't really a derogative term. TBH, I've noticed the western-central-eastern connection, and I wouldn't think it puts them down to group them by the name of their respective universities. If you find anything using this term explaining that this term is used as a put-down....well, come to think of it, that would probably be enough to save the article in my mind :). Nolelover It's almost football season! 22:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — X96lee15 ( talk) 19:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — X96lee15 ( talk) 19:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - As I wrote in the previous AfD, Show me something that has been written about "Directional Michigan", not just places where the term has been used, and I'll reconsider. All we have are uses of the term, which might be fine in a dictionary -- but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. cmadler ( talk) 20:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This is a term in wide use by sportswriters as illustrated by the article's references to numerous reliable sources (Sports Illustrated, ESPN, NBC, and several newspapers), and not merely opposing fans (as may be the case for tu for Texas, etc.). I also think the article goes beyond a dictionary definition. The article's treatment of the subject also appears to me as neutral and straightforward. Strikehold ( talk) 21:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per WP:NOTNEO, "articles on neologisms are commonly deleted ... To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." The sources found for this article simply use the term and do not explain its origins or significance of the term. Also, while ESPN is frequently cited as a source for usage of the term, WP:GNG expects multiple sources to establish notability. However, ESPN should be treated as a single source, as WP:GNG says "multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." In any event, ESPN only uses the term and does not talk about the term. Per WP:NOTNEO suggestion, this should be added to Wiktionary unless multiple sources about the term are identified. — Bagumba ( talk) 21:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary — Bagumba ( talk) 22:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic content. Usage of a term is dictionary territory. Article doesn't go beyond that, and never could. Rememberway ( talk) 22:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The ESPN "mentions" are part of a column which pretty much exists to make fun of the teams with the worst records in college football and shouldn't be taken seriously in the least. Some of the links are dead and some of them just describe "Team A travels close to home to take on Team B". I've never heard this term at all and the term sounds...I would say too 'intelligent' to be taken seriously as a rivalry name as it sounds like something come up more by a math geek than actual fans. Nate • ( chatter) 00:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think that it's a negative term, but if it were that would not preclude it from inclusion. Notability can arise from negative coverage.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Except that you would have to use the term "coverage" loosely. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete silliness. Neutrality talk 19:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Not just a term used by ESPN but by many other networks and additionally used by fans. Article is well sourced, references are provided. " I don't like it" and " just unencyclopedic" are not reason to delete.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per my comments at the last AfD. I hadn't heard of the term before then, but was surprised to learn how widespread its use can be found. I just don't see how the project is improved by deletion of this. Is it a bit silly? Yes. But 90% of life is silly.-- Milowent • talk blp-r 20:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict) Redirect to Michigan MAC Trophy Upon further thought, I think that making this page a disambiguation page would work best, otherwise delete -- I looked through all the sources (and did a bit of research on my own), and, like the nom said, could find nothing about the term, and only uses of it. This is classic WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The only reason I say redirect first is because it is a valid search term, and the Trophy makes the most sense. Otherwise, "wide use by sportswriters", "additional [use] by fans...[good sourcing]", and even deleting it being silly are not valid reasons to keep. I'm not sure WP:NEO applies, but I do think this could go to Wiktionary. Nolelover It's almost football season! 20:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per X96lee15's reasoning. as the term fails WP:GNG. Looking through all 19 references (two of which are links to conference websites, another two are dead links), I found that not one of them discusses the term, instead just uses it. Per WP:GNG, the sources need to "address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." However, not one of the sources actually tells the reader what the term "Directional Michigan" means and therefore most, if not all, of the article's content is original research. The bulk of the article also explains where exactly the term has been used, which is not notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Basically a WP:DICDEF. Transwikify to Wiktionary if not already done, but conceptually there's not enough here to build an adequate encyclopedia entry. As an alternate idea, one could redirect or merge this to Mid-American Conference if there's anything worth preserving. -- Jayron 32 23:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Response to Jayron Jayron, from my reading of the various "sources," the term also applies to Northern Michigan, too (not a MAC member). If we are going to do anything with this article other than delete it, I would suggest that we do a 4-way disambiguation page to CMU, EMU, WMU and NMU's sports program pages or the athletics section within the main university articles, whichever is applicable. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 23:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'd say that a lot of the material on here reads like a dictionary, but the term itself is worth keeping. Expanding mostly on the history of the term, but keep it as a WP:STUB.
Homo Logica ( talk) 23:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
If sources about the term were identified to establish notability of this neologism, it would be acceptable to leave this article to develop. However, only sources that use the term have been found, so it does not look promising that this article would ever be able to be expanded. WP:NEO says "when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." — Bagumba ( talk) 00:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Bagumba, if you had possession of not-online (or paywall-ed) Michigan newspaper articles or columns which discuss the term, would you share them with us? You michigan people (wherever you went to college) have been warring over this article for FIVE years!-- Milowent • talk blp-r 19:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I kindly ask that editors WP:AVOIDYOU and WP:AGF — Bagumba ( talk) 20:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
That's kind of brash. Is there a reason for that?-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 12:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Good question. Having dug into the history of discussions a little bit, its quite obvious to me that there are some people who are biased in favor of keeping this article and those biased in favor of deletion based on their various school allegiances. Its really ridiculous. Thus we see below the hope that continued nominations of the article will eventually lead to deletion--this is a misuse of AfD. The fact is that the term has been used in the press frequently over the past 20 years, and if it was a more innocuous term, no one would care about trying to delete the article. Instead, people want to battle over whether the press coverage is significant enough/weighty enough/whatever--which is ultimately subjective and leads to these no consensus outcomes. At a different level, the same exact thing has gone on with the Santorum (neologism), for years.-- Milowent • talk blp-r 12:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Milowent: I'm not sure why you directed your comment at me. I have not participated in previous AfDs on this subject. Also, I see no evidence to your charge that any editor here is intentionally withholding "paywall-ed" information to advance a position. Again, assume good faith. Also, all editors have their own inherent biases, but collectively, it balances out. — Bagumba ( talk) 21:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The article is obviously here just to define the term, and list where it's used, but that's not what encyclopedias do. An encyclopedia article would be all about those three college's sports teams, but actually they don't have much in common so there's nothing to write. And so you're left with just defining the term and saying how and where you use it, but that is what dictionaries are for. An encyclopedia article has to go significantly beyond being just about the term. Rememberway ( talk) 00:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - echoing my comments from the last AfD; the volume of coverage indicates that it is a notable concept, however, if deletion ends up a consensus, the page should be used as a disambiguation page. matt91486 ( talk) 16:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Without providing further explanation on your prior comments, referring to the "volume of coverage" seems like a plea to not WP:LOSE work done on this article regardless of its notability, or to keep it based merely on the number of WP:GOOGLEHITS without considering the content of those sources. However, much can be salvaged by tranwikiing to a more appropriate site, Wiktionary. — Bagumba ( talk) 17:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
If this is suitable for inclusion in Wiktionary, that might be a good solution. cmadler ( talk) 17:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I don't believe that this would pass Wiktionary's Criteria for Inclusion. bd2412 T 20:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Turning it into a disamb page would seem to be compatible with the Wikipedia's policies, it's still a delete though, the article is gone, disambiguations aren't articles, so you could immediately create it after the *A*FD if you wished. Rememberway ( talk) 17:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Is there something else called "Directional Michigan" that this usage is ambiguous with? A film or an album, perhaps? If not, then there is nothing to disambiguate. Disambiguation pages serve to distinguish between different things having the same name. Anything else is an abuse of the disambiguation tag. bd2412 T 20:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete as a neo.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Nothing has changed since the previous AFDs. We're just here again, despite having any new evidence from the previous AFDs because someone else came along and had a problem with it. There are no new arguments or reasons presented than the previous AFDs, and therefore we will likely have the same result. I can only hope that someone, before nominating for a 4th AFD, actually take the time and read the rules for AFDs, the previous AFDs, and decide that they shouldn't bother unless that have some significant new reason. MECU≈ talk 22:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Really? Nothing has changed? By my count, the tally stands 10 votes for Delete, 6 votes for Keep, and 2 votes for converting the article to disambiguation which become votes for Deleting the article if the tally does not constitute a consensus for Keeping. By my reckoning, sir, that's dangerously close to a consensus for DELETE. 173.168.183.102 ( talk) 23:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Closer Look at least 4 (if not more, depending on interpretation) of the "delete" !votes are for invalid deletion reasons, variations of "unencyclopedic" and the age-old "I don't like it" -- So that leaves at most 6 with a delete position and 6 with a keep position.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • It's not a vote Paul, it's a discussion. Further, I could argue that all 6 of the keep !votes are for "invalid" reasons, as most of them do not state any policies as backing. Some keep !votes merely state "per last AfD." Regardless of how either of us construe the consensus of this AfD, it doesn't matter. It's up to the closing admin to decide. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • of course this is not a vote. I wasn't the one who brought up counting the votes.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 00:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict) How about that it fails WP:NEO, WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:GNG? Furthermore, the first two AfDs were closed as "no consensus" so you can't say another discussion wouldn't be helpful. It's not like one or both of the previous AfDs had real consensus, otherwise this probably wouldn't be here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • If you keep listing an article you can eventually get it deleted, yes. No way this fails WP:GNG, too many references in widely-distributed publications. No way this fails WP:NOTDICTIONAY because simply put, it isn't a dictinary definition. And no way it fails WP:NEO because the term is defined in the context of multiple articles cited. History and origin could be added and over time they likely will when adequate research is completed--but there is a history, it is verifiable, and it is widely notable as an abundance of sources show. Further, Mecu is correct in that there have been no new arguments brought up in favor of deletion. There are at this moment more people making that same argument, but AFDs are not about popular vote.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 05:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • "No consensus" does not mean that there was consensus for the article to be kept in either AfD discussion, so until there is a consensus for either "keep" or "delete," there will continue to be AfDs. If the term "Directional Michigan" passes GNG, please show me an article in which the term is not just used, but "sources address the subject directly in detail". Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • WP:WABBITSEASON We obviosly disagree on this point. I believe that this requirement is more than met in the references already in the article and you do not, and neither of us stands alone on this point of contention. Hence, the "no consensus" status on the last two AFDs.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 01:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • By avoiding my request to link to an article that proves the term meets WP:GNG, you acknowledge that it does not pass it. If there are more than enough references which prove the term meets GNG as you say, you should be able to show me here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Again, asked and answered I have not avoided your request and I do not make such an acknowledgement. There are nineteen different references on the article page. Start there.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Ref 1 is not really a ref in that it just links to the MAC website. Refs 2-12 are trivial mentions that do not talk about the term, ref 13 is a dead link, ref 14 is a trivial mention that does not talk about the term, ref 15 is a dead link, refs 16-17 are trivial mentions that do not talk about the term, ref 18 is a link to the GLIAC website, and ref 19 is another trivial mention that does not talk about the term.
  • To recap, we have 15 references that only use the term but do not talk about it, two links to conference websites, and two dead links. Again, none of these references are sufficient enough for the term to pass GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I fully agree with Eagles here. I had looked through all the sources, and not one of them discusses the term itself, an obviously necessity to pass GNG, or even NOTDIC. Nolelover It's almost football season! 18:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Content of sources WP:LOTSOFSOURCES encourages discussion of the specific content of sources over just listing them. — Bagumba ( talk) 19:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Paul McDermott (footballer)

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

WP:V--Another historical Irish footballer that I can't find reliable sources for, the FAI Cup team win might make him notable, but not without verification. A common name, there's a passing reference in a 1999 Irish Times article to a player with the same name who appears to be a different player. But additional sources are welcome, as always. joe decker talk to me 16:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. -- Joaquin008 ( talk) 19:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - It should be noted that this person was active before Irish news was published widely online, so the GNG might be more difficult to establish. I have found a source (The Irish Times, not available without subscription) via ProQuest that says that he was being considered for the FAI cup final, although frustratingly, I can't verify that he did play in that final. I am not convinced that he meets the GNG, as the sources I have seen are not about him, but rather mention him in the context of the clubs he was a member of. I accept that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL, as the FAI league was probably not professional at that time. Quasihuman |  Talk 19:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Renaissance and Baroque Society of Pittsburgh

Renaissance and Baroque Society of Pittsburgh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this sounds like a great organization, the article has remained completely unsourced. I searched Google to see if I could rectify that, but I was unable to find any reliable, secondary sources on the organization to establish notabilty. Ladyof Shalott 16:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Arguably major arts organizations in Paris, London or New York are also largely reviewed by the 'local' press, given that they are static unlike arts performers. Do we have any similar articles about music promoting organizations in other cities? -- Klein zach 09:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Of course, see [17]. -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 09:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I now understand the society is mentioned in Grove Music (Ida Reed and Robert Croan. "Pittsburgh." Oxford Music Online, www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/21869.) -- Klein zach 00:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (albeit a weakish one). I've added the Grove reference + a couple more and have fleshed out the article a bit. I gather from this that if anyone wants to spend time in the archives of the 'Oral History of Music in Pittsburgh' project at the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, they could find more on the society's history. Voceditenore ( talk) 07:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article is now in a good shape and well referenced. -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 11:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Per the references that have been found, I gladly withdraw the nomination. As there have been no other calls for deletion, anyone should feel free to close this discussion. Ladyof Shalott 14:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

English conjugation tables

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

Why the page should be deleted

English conjugation tables is unreferenced Original Research, contains a very large number of mistakes, and contains no valid content that is not in the article English verbs. Duoduoduo ( talk) 16:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Detailed reasons to delete

The article is chock full of absurdities, so much so that it would certainly be impossible to salvage (and if it were salvaged, it would simply replicate the article English verbs).

  • The nonsense starts with the title itself: English conjugation tables. Almost the entire article consists of verbal constructions that are not conjugations (conjugations being morphological verb changes as in blow /blows / blew / blown / blowing).
  • The section on the verb "to have (got)" is bizarre. It mixes the "must" meaning with the present/past perfect usage, the latter of which never uses "got".
  • Section on Moods: I may be and I would be are not moods, since they are not inflectional. Probably some traditional English grammars call would be the conditional mood, but I doubt that any call may be a mood -- it's one type of modality, just like all the constructions that use modal auxiliaries.
  • The "non-finite moods" infinitive, gerund, and [past] participle are not normally called moods.
  • What the article calls tenses are actually tense-aspect constructions.
  • The number and person section is not even about verbs.
  • The conjugation tables have a thou column, even though thou does not occur in Modern English.
  • It says that, e.g., He hath been being played is an English construction, although actually such a construction never appears in the language.
  • The active conjugation tables actually say things like I might go is the simple past of I may go. That morphological relationship is of historical interest, but does not reflect the actual language as it currently exists -- the past of may go is may have gone when may means possibly; when may means have permission to, it has no past form. And anyway, may go and might go are not simple forms as asserted, as they contain two words.
  • No one is going to learn the subjunctive from the table of subjunctives, which doesn't have examples of usage.
  • There are unexlainable omissions. The were to go form, for example, is missing from the subjunctive table. Two tense-aspect combinations are missing: I would play [sometime later than that time in the past] (future of the past); and I used to play (past tense, habitual aspect).
  • The imperative section is full of absurdities. It actually says let me go is first person imperative -- actually it is second person. Etc., etc., throughout the section. And for example it actually says have gone is present perfect second person plural imperative!
  • The imperative section even gets the first person plural present wrong -- the form in Let us go is almost never used, except in stock phrases like let us pray. Let's go is correct, even in formal English.
  • The section on the auxiliary to do is all messed up. The auxiliary is do, not to do, and it has no infinitive, gerund, or participles. All the examples in the table (except for the intensive present indicative) are wrong for a section on the auxiliary -- e.g., am doing, will do, etc. have nothing to do with the auxiliary.
  • Ditto on the "auxiliary" let: everything in this section is wrong -- e.g., I let, I have let, etc., have nothing to do with the alleged auxiliary role of let.
  • The section on the modal auxiliary must says that the past tense of must is must!
  • Having a table that simply gives the past of will as would is confusing to a learner, without context.
  • In the passive section, the article says, for example, that might be played is the simple past passive. Actually it's not simple, containing three words, and it is not past (instead expressing doubtful possibility about the present or future).

Duoduoduo ( talk) 17:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Keep—it may be unreferenced, but I'm not totally convinced that English grammar is original research (although I guess it could be argued that someone made it up...) and there are plenty of learned works which could be used as sources. ╟─ Treasury Tag► high seas─╢ 17:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
English grammar is not original research -- the numerous false assertions in this article are original research, and you won't be able to find any learned works to use as sources for those assertions. Duoduoduo ( talk) 17:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This page presents a fundamentally misguided approach to English grammar and is practically useless. My (expert) view on its problems is here: Talk:English_conjugation_tables#Comment. That's what I said four years ago; my opinion hasn't changed. The page also omits to treat the important time-of-the-day distinction in the domain of prospective tense categories, which personally offends me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It could be fixed (and renamed), but I don't see the point. — kwami ( talk) 18:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The article title alone is a problem, as English is almost entirely analytic with verbs, and verbs hardly conjugate at all. The article is completely unreferenced and the bits which aren't complete original research seem to be mostly based on the 19th century grammar school approach, which was basically making analogies between English and Latin grammar. This approach is definitely regarded as fringe today because it's so full of holes. For example, the claim that there's such a thing as a "future tense" in English is crazy. The Latin scholars named the "will" construction the "future tense" (also randomly deciding you have to use "shall" for the first person), whereas in reality we can also use "going to" and both present tenses to talk about the future. This type of system is great for learners of Latin, not so good for learners of English. - filelake shoe 18:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Erm. Totally agreed with Filelakeshoe about what's going on here. This is very much a 19th century model of English, which is why at least some of the demonstrably wrong things are that way. Some of these very peculiar forms are attested in literature, if rarely. There are are least a couple uses of "hath been being verbed" [18] [19] and the truly bizarre "let us have been verbing" imperative form gets a mention in an 18th century French-language English grammar book. [20] I suspect there was a point in time when the material presented here was, if not considered correct, at least much closer. That time isn't now though, so the question becomes what we should do with it. Right now, it's put forth as a sort of fork of English verbs, and that's a non-starter. I'd like to think at least some of this could be useful, somewhere, but if not, it probably needs scuttled. Serpent's Choice ( talk) 18:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Do let me have been being played! - moreover do let this article have been being deleted. This is not how the English language works, and many of the terms listed simply don't exist in modern English. I did laugh... Anthem of joy ( talk) 20:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Cnilep ( talk) 21:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this bizarre article per the above arguments. Iblardi ( talk) 22:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree with the other arguments. The article is unnecessary and incorrect in many places. Material is covered by English verbs and English grammar. Count Truthstein ( talk) 13:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - especially per nom and Count Truthstein; some of the more obscure rules are also found in other articles, including cognate object and demonstrative. Bearian ( talk) 19:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There are mistakes and lots of them. The material has nothing that is really worthy of being in an encyclopaedia; perhaps this is something for wiktionary. -- Île flottante ( talk) 18:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - It is absurd to call the English Conjugation pages unreferenced Original Research. It is no more original research than all the technical information found on tens of thousands of Wiki pages, including especially linguistics and computer languages. This page needs to be improved, but not deleted. I have helped a lot of foreign speakers with their English, and have referred them to this page and used it to explain grammar to them. Overall the vast majority of this page is very instructive. The criticisms made here are good starting points for improving it. It is not an impossible task. bruvensky ( talk) 18:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment. "Absurd" to call it original research? Big swaths of this article are original, and wrong. For one example among many, consider the following line from a table of imperatives in the article, with columns by person and number:
|simple present||let me play||play||play||let him/her/it play||let us play||play||let them play
I challenge you to find a source that says that these are imperative forms in the first, second, and third persons singular and plural. You won't. Likewise for all the numerous mistakes listed above -- you won't find them anywhere else but here, because they are original and wrong. If you wish to refute the original research claim, you need to find references that substantiate the various things I've labeled at the top of this page as wrong in the article, rather than making a vague blanket statement that the article is not original. Duoduoduo ( talk) 20:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Janet Gordon-Lennox, Countess of March and Kinrara

Janet Gordon-Lennox, Countess of March and Kinrara (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTINHERITED comes into play; unless she can be shown to be notable independent of her husband or father, she doesn't get an article. Ironholds ( talk) 16:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep - if I'm understanding WP:NOTINHERITED correctly, this falls under the exemption of "situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right." —Tim Pierce ( talk) 18:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Because? Ironholds ( talk) 18:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Because the entire system of peerage is built around defining people as notable based on who they're married to or descended from. I may have it wrong, but it's my impression that Wikipedia presumes titled peers to be notable. —Tim Pierce ( talk) 19:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Titled peers are presumed to be notable because they've historically passed WP:POLITICIAN. however, she is a titled peer through her marriage and not by dint of ancestry. Ironholds ( talk) 19:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:ANYBIO: "the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor", in this case The_Honourable#United_Kingdom. This is not a failure of WP:INHERITED; although the honour was a hereditory one, it was still bestowed upon the subject herself. RichardOSmith ( talk) 18:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Except it wasn't. She's a courtesy peer because she's married to someone with an actual title. Ironholds ( talk) 19:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • No, she was born with the title I cited. RichardOSmith ( talk) 19:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
      • The Honourable being awarded to any child of a peer, even life peers. You equate this with a well-known and significant award? Ironholds ( talk) 19:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
        • The article you linked to also identified it as a courtesy only. Ironholds ( talk) 19:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (with the obvious proviso that if any notabilty for the subject in her own right is demonstrated, then that should be considered) I would have to agree with Ironholds that the Honourabletitle is just a courtesy title. In addition, even her husbands's title, the Earl of March and Kinrara, is in itself a courtesy title. There is a tradition of the sons of senior peers using a lesser title of the father as a styling, but the actual title resides with the father (in this case the father-in-law of the subject of this article, so the subject's title is most certainly merely a courtesy styling. (See Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom and a specific mention of the title in List of courtesy titles in the Peerages of the British Isles.) Returning to the subject of this article, it would need to be established that the subject is the subject of coverage in her own right to establish notabilty, either in a particular field or general notability. Apart from a few trivial mentions, not from reliable sources, that say she attended events connected with the Goodwood Estate, I can't find any coverage, although others might be more successful in finding it. FlowerpotmaN·( t) 21:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nominator. Long-established policy on encyclopædicness. James F. (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. The wife of the holder of a courtesy title is not preemptively notable, and there is no independent assertion of notability. Mackensen (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Just to close this out: I don't have a dog in this fight and the fate of this particular article is not of great interest to me. But the way WP:NOTINHERITED is written implies that this person is to be presumed notable. If it shouldn't, that's fine with me, but it should make it clear why, i.e. which titles are presumed notable and which aren't. —Tim Pierce ( talk) 19:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution

Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable bill: never got out of committee, no significant independent RS coverage, article created by the communications director for the organization backing the bill. (Those looking for sources should be careful not to mix up a Colorado state-level amendment, or other proposed state amendments, with this one; additionally, in spite of the lede in this article, it's not significant coverage of the amendment.) Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. The nom has a point about the advocacy tone of the current article, but in addition to the AP story already cited in the article, I do find more independent coverage, here for example: [21] [22] [23] [24] Enough here to make me think there is valid and worthwhile content here. I would not necessarily oppose merging this into a broader article, if one exists, but I haven't identified a likely target yet.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I found those, but I don't really consider them significant for purposes of establishing notability - the CBS one is nice and long but pretty much none of it is about the proposed amendment, as opposed to the treaty and general opposition to it, and the Indy source isn't really coverage of the amendment at all. The other sources are too short (I'm also iffy about using Christian Post to attest notability - to be notable, a subject should have received coverage in mainstream sources, not only in far-right papers when it is itself a far-right subject). Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Every session of Congress sees at least a handful of proposed Constitutional amendments that, like this one, go less than nowhere. Depending on the political clime of the day and how bored the news services are, sometimes people write about them. Much like Oakland, there's no there there. The bar for inclusion for these political-stunt amendments is (or ought be) a good bit higher than this one meets. Serpent's Choice ( talk) 20:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep*. I am the editor in question, so you know up front. I do not try to hide my affiliation with ParentalRights.org and I welcome and have welcomed critical edits to the article in order to counter my own bias. I want the article to meet Wiki's goals. The article in its current state has been significantly edited from my original posting, particularly thanks to Npdoty and TiC. I would also discourage removal based on the fact that the resolution did not make it out of committee, because the language has already been introduced again in the current Congress (HJR 3), and will be moved forward in coming months. Additionally, state-level resolutions for its passage have been passed in the last 3 months in Idaho, Montana, and Florida, and in the Texas House. These further demonstrate that it is not a dead issue. If the article is deleted, it should be if other reasons merit it; that reason is premature in my opinion. Michael Ramey 21:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The state-level thing suggests at most that the article on the UN Convention might deserve a mention on US legislative response [Ed. Fancy that, there's a whole article on the US and the Convention!]; whatever notability the state-level laws may have does not reflect on the notability of the proposed federal law, which lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
These state resolutions (none of these at the state or federal level are "bills" or "proposed laws") all call on the U.S. Congress to propose to the States for ratification the Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. While some mention the Convention, some do not. They all call for this Amendment. Since this Amendment has inspired a movement that is growing and not shrinking, I aver that the Wiki community is enriched by its mention so long as the possibility of its passage exists. Should it become the Twenty-eighth Amendment, the presence of this article from early in the process will be of benefit to Wiki goals. I am also compelled to point out that (1) "Wiki encourages COI editors" as long as their work is in keeping with Wiki goals, which I adamantly strive to achieve and (2) User:Roscelese reveals in her profile a strong personal/political motivation to oppose pro-family issues such as the one described in this article. Wiki is not intended to be a political battleground, either for promoting or opposing causes. This article is open to edits so that it will be neutral presentation, not a political promotion. But this removal attempt appears to be fueled by political interests. Michael Ramey 15:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I'd love to hear how I'm anti-family, but the discussion of the article on this thing that you're paid to promote is not the right place. Find sources that satisfy WP:GNG - not press releases, not other self-published opinion pieces from far-right political groups. This is how you indicate notability, not by claiming some movement whose existence is not supported by secondary sources. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)::::I apologize for the anti-family tag; I misread your profile; I admit my error. Michael Ramey 19:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable or not depends on coverage in press. It is sufficiently notable per quoted sources. Hodja Nasreddin ( talk) 02:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The quotes sources are...not press. One only has to look at them to notice this. Only the CBS source is, and as I pointed out, that's not significant coverage that satisfies GNG. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
"Notability requires verifiable evidence;" Wiki guidelines do not require that sources be "press." In the case of this proposed amendment and the resolutions supporting it, the records of the U.S. Congress and state legislatures are better sources than a news article. Major media's choice not to cover an event does not mean the event did not happen or is not Wiki-worthy. Michael Ramey ( talk) 15:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
"The records of the U.S. Congress and state legislatures" do not indicate notability, they're obviously a primary source. WP requires secondary sources. The lack of any significant coverage is actually a pretty good indication that it's not Wiki-worthy. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Sam Rhansum

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

This article is a biography of a living person with no sources. The subject is a rapper who has not been signed to a label. There are claims to having provided some music for TV episodes of American Gangster. That by itself is not sufficient to establish notability. I can find no coverage about him in reliable sources. Whpq ( talk) 15:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 19:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Les Gentlemen

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

This 1-sentence, 1-ref article on a band, that only says that they were 'popular", was PRODed under A7. It was de-prodded on the basis that it has a single reference. I could not find sufficient evidence of notability of this band under wp’s notability rules, including sufficient multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable sources that are independent from the band ensemble itself. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche ( talk) 15:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A Google Book preview is available for the reference in the article. The reference identifies pages 289-303 in the book which would appear substantial. My own review of the source only found a passing mention on page 294. I also found another passing mention in this book. Essentially, this verifies that Ralph Thamar was a member of the band, and not much else. -- Whpq ( talk) 14:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to One Tree Hill (TV series). Goodvac ( talk) 21:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

One Tree Hill (season 9)

One Tree Hill (season 9) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources 2,3,5 are horrible, 1 only says 13 episodes and "mid season" so WP:OR to guess it will be January, so we are left with 4, which is a pretty decent source. So for good sources we are left with 13 episodes and that some of the actors may return to the show. Delete/Redirect till more reliable info is available. CTJF83 12:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Agreed, no reliable sources, not enough information. I think it should be redirected until there's sufficient information. Last minute renewal so there's no much yet. Jayy008 ( talk) 16:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per nom, and incubate/userfy the current article so the work so far is not lost and can be built over. Nothing to merge since current information is already available at One Tree Hill (TV series)#Series end - frankieMR ( talk) 16:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Well if redirected, the current state would be "saved" in the history of the article :) CTJF83 20:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Excellent. I still get lost on how merges and history preservation actually work. Still, I believe that involved editors would like to work on it while out of the mainspace - frankieMR ( talk) 23:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I do not think the article needs to be deleted, just worked on, as it does have relevant information, just stronger sources for the Production section would be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.39.84 ( talk) 01:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I don't know if I "jumped the gun," but I redirected the article to "One Tree Hill (TV series)". Jayy008 ( talk) 15:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Chadian Arabic. Spartaz Humbug! 15:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Nigerian Arabic

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

Content fork. Text already merged with Chadian Arabic, which is the name of the language maintained at Ethnologue and Linguist List and assigned to its ISO code. — kwami ( talk) 12:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

If they're ever developed to that extent, there would be nothing wrong with splitting the article. But for now even the combined article is a stub. — kwami ( talk) 16:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Treehouse attachment bolt

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

A sub-set of lag bolts. Since lag bolt only warrants a paragraph in the screw article, this subject scarcely even warrants a redirect. far too specialised. Also verging towards being an advert. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 11:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete it looks like advertising for a trademarked product to me. Eeekster ( talk) 12:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete as spam. VQuakr ( talk) 14:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per nom; I am unable to find evidence of notability. RichardOSmith ( talk) 18:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The sources provided, although not scholarly or news media, seem to be reliable enough to provide information on this item. Obviously only of interest to people interested in building treehouses, but I don't see why WP should not have an article on it. The fact that other hardware items are undercovered is not a reason to delete this informative article. Borock ( talk) 00:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The original edit I created was free from ambiguous ads linking to other sites attempting to sell their TABs, but has since been updated mostly with original research and the like. -- Pgifford1987 ( talk) 01:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article is quite informative whereas lag bolt is almost useless in explaining what is meant. Note that there is a variety of terms for this topic and TAB might be explained in sources as Tree Anchor Bolt. See Support system innovations for some good coverage of the topic. Colonel Warden ( talk) 05:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article needs more articles in support if anything, or it may just be in the wrong place. It is about a revolutionary new device that sparked a diverse fledgling industry (building and suspension in trees, bridges, ziplines, treehouses) that does not have much certified public material to cite from yet. The private interests cited in it are currently the best sources of publicly available research and practice on the subject. They are the best sources of free information as well as to find supplies. It may be an uphill battle to avoid seeming an advert, it needs some help not to endorse a particular product, but should stay in. Jefryclair ( talk) 16:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The problems with the article are a matter of editing. The subject matter itself is sourced and the wording can be, and is currently being, fixed. Dennis Brown ( talk) 18:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Refs discovered during AfD should be incorported into the article. ( non-admin closure) v/r - T P 15:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Jeffrey Thomas (writer)

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

Cannot find enough reliable sources that indicate this author is notable. His published work is among many indpendent presses and haven't received much in the way of third-pary coverage. Jimsteele9999 ( talk) 11:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: He has been on the ballot for both the John W. Campbell Award and the Bram Stoker Award for different works, which indicates notability. References exist within the article, but, of course, could be improved. Also while his publications are through Small Press/Independent Presses, they are presses that impose editorial decisions and are not vanity presses. Shsilver ( talk) 17:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not winning a Stoker or a Campbell doesn't confer notability. If he had won, we might be talking about something, but as it is, you can get on the ballot of most of these awards simply by submitting a copy of your work for review (I'm not saying that's the case here, but I'm leaning that way, considered how many books I've seen being touted as having been on the Stoker preliminary ballot). I don't think that the presses he publishes through concern us. As far as the significant critical attention that would be his route to notability—he's seen a lot of blog attention, but I can't find any solid newspaper, literary magazine, journal, or periodical reviews. If he was notable, there'd be at least one of these. No way to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG in this state. —  Chromancer  talk
    • Comment Chromance is simply speaking from pure ignorance here. The Bram Stoker awards make a distinction between recommended (someone puts it on the list), a preliminary ballot or longlist, and the final ballot. The Campbell Award is a juried award (there are two Campbells, one for "new writer" and one for books--Thomas has been nominated for the latter). It is amazing how frequently and how freely people on Wiki insist that whatever vague notions in their heads are facts when ten seconds of research could explain the truth.

cont 21:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: I cannot believe, with his body of work and notability, that this page is being considered for deletion. Jeffrey Thomas is a fine writer and more than deserving of a Wiki page. His body of work is far more extensive than other writer's who have pages here in addition to being nominated for several prestigious awards. You would let a hack like Nick Mamatas have a page yet deny Jeffrey Thomas one? Thomas has a larger body of work, has been reviewed in the very prestigious Publishers Weekly and has been a finalist for several awards. That alone should qualify him for a page here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonebridge ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Magazine review, Publisher's Weekly: http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-84416-447-9, magazine review, The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/feb/03/featuresreviews.guardianreview16?INTCMP=SRCH Talien79 ( talk) 06:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP: First off, he was not just on the ballot for those awards, he was a finalist. Consider his competition for the Campbell Award, his novel went up against the works of Michael Chabon, Kathleen Goonan, Sherri S. Tepper, Jay Lake, Brian Aldiss, and Ken McLeod http://www2.ku.edu/~sfcenter/campbell-finalists.htm. What this appears to be is a matter of recognition. Thomas has been reviewed by Publisher's Weekly several times, it's not difficult to find these http://search2.publishersweekly.com/search?site=all&client=universal&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=universal&filter=p&tlen=128&q=jeffrey+thomas. You won't find a single bad review of his work on Amazon, and in my opinion a consumer's review is far more important than any literary critic.
  • Comment from nominator: First of all, please note what Chromancer stated, that in fact being nominated for an award does not necessarily confer notability. It seems every time an author (particularly one who writes science fiction) is nominated for deletion, legions of fans come out and claim that because the author was nomintated, short-listed or even made it to the finalist regarding the Stoker or the Campbell or some other award. I'm not sure the Stoker award denotes any distinguished writing. By that I mean the award seems to avoid the traditional system of judging work on its own merit and fostering competition among the applicants, and instead encourages newer writers to break into the publishing industry by receiving attention they wouldn't otherwise get. Thus, works can be nominated by anyone in the HWA, and this essentially makes any writer nominated able to make the preliminary ballot. I see the PW reviews, and this helps. But note, Amazon reviews (for the record, literary critics are more qualified than a random Amazon reviewer) and claiming he is a "fine writer...deserving of more than a Wiki page" once again turns this into a voting contest, something this isn't supposed to be. Jimsteele9999 ( talk) 11:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • "For the record, literary critics are more qualified than a random Amazon reviewer." Are they really? Why? Just because someone makes their living writing reviews does not make them any more qualified to decide what is and is not good, since reviews by their very nature are highly subjective. Let's remember that if the critics had been right (which, I think, most people would agree they weren't), Les Misérables would have closed within a week instead of becoming the longest-running musical in history! It was utterly panned by those "qualified" people! Just one example. No, critics are no more qualified to judge a work than the rest of us - they just get more airtime. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 00:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • The comment I made was in reference to the remark that since there "isn't one bad review of this guy's work on Amazon" he is therefore a good writer and must be notable. I don't necessarily think that because someone is a critic they automatically decide for everyone what is good or what is not. Surely, that's not the intent. I mean, a reader can read a review of a book and agree. But the critic is epressing his or her view on the work, analyzing it, reviewing it, discussing it and maybe (often, it seems) torching it in the process. Again, this doesn't mean they are deciding for others "what is good and what is not", because one would hope the readership decides that on their own. And so they have, apparently with this author, on Amazon. Well, great. But the thing is, literary critics generally have criticism that holds more weight than the average joe. And yes, they get more airtime, often because they are more qualified than the average person. Don't believe me? Why do you think blurbs are included on books? Think they don't sway opinon? I'm not going to arge whether they are right or wrong, if they are dispensing subjective advice for a paycheck, if or how they are qualified, but I do think it's worth noting this author hasn't had much in the way of any substantial reviews. A 200 word blurb does not cut it, and as I have said before if we used Publisher's Weekly as the sole source of how we determine notability we'd have no space left on this encylcopedia for authors. Jimsteele9999 ( talk) 14:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment from Talien79: Thank you for recognizing the previously cited sources as legitimate. In relation to Mr. Thomas' notability regarding awards: "1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." WP:ANYBIO We have established that Mr. Thomas has in fact been nominated twice as a finalist (not just merely nominated) for "well-known and significant" awards. How do we know these awards are well-known and significant? Because they are on Wikipedia. You argument lends credence that the Stoker award should be removed from Wikipedia, not Mr. Thomas himself. Focusing on the notability guidelines for Creative Professionals, WP:AUTHOR it seems we are primarly concerned with #3: "3.The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." If that's the case, are the previously cited independent periodical reviews a sufficient test of notability? Talien79 ( talk) 15:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment. I cannot emphasize more how much 200-word blurbs, which are not critically significant, cannot confer notability. Neither the Guardian mention (not even a full article, a paragraph in a new books section) nor the Publisher's Weekly blotter mention are sufficient to pass criterion 3. And again, not winning an award does not confer notability. It doesn't matter what portion of the ballot he was on, he still didn't win anything. —  Chromancer  talk/ cont 21:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment. Agreed, it doesn't matter what portion of the ballot he was on because it is not necessary to receive an award for notability. WP:ANYBIO indicates he can be "nominated for one several times." How many is several? Talien79 ( talk) 17:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment from nominator: Talien, we're seeing if the source(s) help the subject clear the hurdle of notability. So far, this author fails. You are not correct to assume just because an award is listed on WP it is notable. There are many articles on WP representing subjects that have no place in an encyclopedia. It is our job to collectively make this place full of articles on bona fide subjects rather than a place for vanity and fan fervor. If we had an article for every author mentioned in PW this would be a very busy place. In terms of WP:ANYBIO, the criterion is not to be interpreted as strict policy, more of suggestions for how to reach a consensus. That being said, it is worth noting that the subject of this article has recently been editing his own page (since I first nominated the article for deletion), and although this doesn't immediately violate WP:COI (as far as I know) it doesn't help us. If in fact you agree with me the Stoker awards are not an important award (or at least carry distinction the way other literary awards earned by writers judged by, say a blind-review process or a jury of some type without input from fans) than this writer--whom people have claimed has been nominated many times--is not notable. It's open and shut. Jimsteele9999 ( talk) 23:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment Jimsteele9999 has a habit of discussing literary awards while knowing nothing about them. Not every book or story recommended for a Stoker makes the preliminary ballot, not every work on the preliminary ballot makes the final ballot. The Stoker is also not an award granted by "input from fans", but by members of a professional association--the Horror Writers Association. (Incidentally, the far more prestigious and venerable Hugo IS a fan-award, essentially, and is absolutely an important award.) JimSteele, why do you continually propose writer articles for deletion when you know little about the subject, and why do you insist on propogating misinformation about the Stoker, Hugo, World Fantasy, etc. Also, you know very little about publishing--an independent press is not an inferior model of a major press. Large presses such as W.W. Norton are independent, small imprints such as Tweleve (only a dozen books a year!) are boutique elements of major presses. Solaris, which published Thomas titles, releases work in mass market paperback; by definition print runs are in the tens and tens of thousands. JimSteele999, you should not be allowed to put works up for deletion on topics about which you know nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.68.29 ( talk) 20:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment. I'm trying to understand here, so please forgive my ignorance - if we're trying to reach a consensus, aren't existing articles on Wikipedia representative of that consensus? I personally haven't done enough research to determine if the Stoker awards aren't worthy of notability, but if they aren't, I would imagine the entry should be nominated for deletion too, right? I only used the notability guidelines because the first line advocating deletion indicates that there are "not enough reliable sources that indicate this author is notable." If we're not using notability guidelines, the second statement ("haven't received much in the way of third-party coverage") has already been countered. There's plenty of third party coverage. Follow up statements seem to indicate that said third party coverage should be notable. So I'm assuming we should focus our conversation on the notability of the coverage itself (length of reviews or mentions, content, etc.) than the fact that it was covered by third parties. If at issue isn't notability, but in fact WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, then I suppose the argument rests entirely with the admin's opinion (I have no idea who the admin is in this case) of whether or not the page should be deleted. I know rough consensus isn't a headcount issue, but I think I've tried to lay out the case for retaining the article as cogently as I could, within the boundaries of 1) notability of the author (not his nominations), and 2) the original arguments provided for deletion. I would hope that any discussion here, by virtue of the need for consensus, is never "open and shut." Talien79 ( talk) 21:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. My instinct is that this chap has enough published works to be worthy of an article. He has been nominated for awards. His works are readily available. They're not just vanity press publications. Notability guidelines are just that - guidelines, not set-in-stone policies. I think it's moot whether he meets the notability guidelines or not, but I think it would be hard to say he actually outright fails them. Therefore I'm coming down on the keep side. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 23:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a no-brainer. The author has been a finalist for the Bram Stoker Award and John W. Campbell Award, is published by reputable presses, and has independent sources to back up his notability. While the article could and should be improved so it has more sources and information, the article's quality issues are not a valid reason for deletion.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 13:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A person who was a finalist for the Bram Stoker Award and a finalist for the John W. Campbell award is an author who has achieved notability within those writing groups, and that is reflected by the references given. htom ( talk) 18:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 15:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Noizy

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

Article contains no reliable sources, just references to the subject's web pages, youtube, and a fan site. No assertion that any of his recordings have charted. If we keep it, it will need cleanup, but I do not think the subject meets ENTERTAINER. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 11:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: The notability of the article has not been established. I do agree with Nuujinn that if it is kept in Wikipedpia, it will need a lot of cleanup in terms of rewriting, referencing and notability. Tashif ( talk) 11:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails to meet the inclusion criteria at WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. RichardOSmith ( talk) 19:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Emerging strong artist, very nice to hear: his song "Te urrej se te dua" was a huge success and launched Ester Hoxha. I don't understand how it doesn't meet GNG: He is huge in Albania. -- Doktor Plumbi ( talk) 02:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
GNG (which is what you rely on) requires that you point us to RS sources that reflect his notability.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Or, if he meets the criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER, that would work as well, but we really need to see some significant coverage in a reliable source. Albanian sources would be fine, but we'd have to have good translations of same. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 12:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Austin Brown

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

no real notability shown for this spam bio. he may have worked with some notable people but notability is not inherited. he may be related to some notable people but notability is not inherited. co-founding a non notable company he is signed to does not make him notable. releasing a single on your own website falls well short of what is needed for wp:music. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

logs say this was protected after two G4 deletions in 2008, don't know how it was recreated. since the recreation he has self released a single. very minor difference so another G4 may be in order. probably should be salted if delete. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I agree with the nomination, Austin Brown doesn't seem notable. TehGrauniad ( talk) 11:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I completely agree guys, it does not abide by WP:REF and WP:NOTE at all. Tashif ( talk) 11:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 14:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Taleah Doyle

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

Football player who plays for semi-professional league (per WP:FPL) and only had youth international appearances, thereby falling short of WP:NFOOTBALL guidelines. Coverage is general sports journalism that does not show this person to have achieved anything of particular note to Wikipedia standards (previously listed under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Logue Club Oranje T 09:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Club Oranje T 10:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 14:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

A Friend Called Anne

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

Could not find reliable sources to establish notability. Oo7565 ( talk) 08:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and above comment, no proof of notability, this article could have been prodded, Sadads ( talk) 15:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • this had been depoded in the past Oo7565 ( talk) 19:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Steve Crowther

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

Current executive chairman of the UK Independence Party, so I expected him to be notable. I added a few refs to the article, but I couldn't find anything that is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, to satisify the general notability guideline. Asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Steve Crowther and haven't received a response in over 10 days. Doesn't meet any of the criteria set out at WP:POLITICIAN either. If anyone can find refs that satisfy the GNG, I'll be happy to withdraw the nom, but I just can't find anything. Jenks24 ( talk) 07:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Jenks24 ( talk) 07:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Would a redirect to UK Independence Party apply here? (WP:POLITICIAN advises it but referring to the election's article, not specifically to the party) - frankie ( talk) 01:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Hmmm, yes I hadn't thought of that, but a redirect would be fine with me. Jenks24 ( talk) 05:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Tamil Forums

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

Completely unreferenced WP:Original research, no evidenced WP:Notability MatthewVanitas ( talk) 17:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 01:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete OR. Looks like someone associated with (or a fan of) tamilnadutalk.com is doing a promotion for them-- Sodabottle ( talk) 04:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Matthewrbowker Say hi! 06:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm treating this as a prod. Spartaz Humbug! 15:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Bohdan Warchomij

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. gnews merely confirms he has taken photos for news.com.au [31]. google search mainly reveals directory listings. created by a single purpose editor so potentially WP:AUTOBIO. those wanting to keep must show indepth third party coverage of this individual not a WP:GOOGLEHITS argument. LibStar ( talk) 06:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Question to nominator, who writes: those wanting to keep must show indepth third party coverage of this individual. They must? Why? -- Hoary ( talk) 14:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
because i can't find evidence of such, and frankly too many keep voters say WP:MUSTBESOURCES and don't supply any. LibStar ( talk) 14:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Are you implying that any AfD that fails to come up with in-depth third-party coverage ends, or should end, in deletion? -- Hoary ( talk) 15:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Please read WP:N. LibStar ( talk) 15:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I have a passing acquaintance with it. A sane version (from January this year) of its "nutshell": Wikipedia covers notable topics—those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources. A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion as a standalone article if it complies with WP:NOT and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. [...].The current version: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant and enduring notice by the world at large, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to determine if the world has shown "significant enough notice" for an encyclopedia article. [...]. The current talk of enduring notice would seem to me to require that every topic should be at least twenty years old; and once this is combined with a requirement that notice should be by the world at large, most topics are out, because only a tiny percentage of WP editors can start to look for significant notice in Swahili, Hausa, Mongolian, Azeri, etc. ¶ The January version takes the form A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion as a standalone article if X. So X is a sufficient reason for inclusion. It is not thereby a necessary reason for inclusion. (Or do you take the current version seriously?) -- Hoary ( talk) 00:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I am no longer going to respond to your need for long explanations. This is AfD exists for discussing the notability of this subject not broad ranging rants. LibStar ( talk) 03:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Oh dear, LibStar, I hope I haven't offended you! No, no, I am not requesting a long explanation, let alone a broad-ranging rant; I am merely wondering whether you are as well acquainted with " WP:N" as you might be. -- Hoary ( talk) 03:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Thirteen of Everything

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

I could not find sufficient evidence of notability of this band under wp’s notability rules, including multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable sources that are independent from the band ensemble itself. Others are welcome to try. It has been tagged for notability since 2010. Epeefleche ( talk) 05:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 15:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC. It's interesting to note that the article states their debut album received "wide acclaim", yet never charted according to Billboard.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This band released a single album in 2005 (according to their website). The lack of a review on AllMusic is usually telling. In order to be thorough, however, I looked through the list of reviews listed on the band's website. Based on that, it's clear that the album did not attract mainstream critical attention. I don't think that any of the criteria of WP:BAND are met in this case. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 17:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per A7. MrKIA11 ( talk) 02:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The Hillbilly Gypsies

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

I could not find sufficient evidence of notability of this band under wp’s notability rules, including multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable sources that are independent from the band ensemble itself. Others are welcome to try. It has been tagged for notability since 2010 Epeefleche ( talk) 05:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete Article doesn't pass A7 in my view, so could have been speedied instead.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Codonics

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

The company claims several local awards, but any coverage of this company appears to be in press releases rather than secondary sources. VQuakr ( talk) 05:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable, spam, COI (author appears to be the company's IT manager), etc. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Ben Richards (Snowboarder)

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

Non-notable individual with a source relating to an entirely different person. All the alleged accomplishments appear to be hoaxes, with no corroboration whatsoever via Google. Meph talk 05:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I have attempted to locate any media mentions of any of the unsourced claims regarding awards and have not turned up a single hit on google or bing. The single source in the article links to an IMDB profile for what appears to be an entirely different person. This appears to be a non-notable athlete per WP:ATHLETE. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 16:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I call bullpiffle on this one. He claims to have competed and finished 18th in some unspecified event at the Winter X Games of 2010. A look at Winter X Games XIV shows not one single event even had 18 competitors. And as for all the other accomplishments, that's pretty impressive top world results for somebody who isn't registered with the FIS, the world governing body for the sport. --- Whpq ( talk) 14:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per A7. MrKIA11 ( talk) 02:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)` reply

The Globalat Playboys

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

Prod removed by IP without explanation. No real claim to notability, article is pretty promotional, and I could not find anything to prove that this act is notable by any of our standards. Drmies ( talk) 05:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Bülent Usta

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

No evidence passes our criteria for notability. I did look at [32], our Turkish Wiki, but that didn't help much. Dougweller ( talk) 05:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Usergate Mail Server

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

recently released piece of software with no sources/no claim to notability present in the article/no significant third party coverage. disputed prod. Kevin ( talk) 05:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - newly released product has 3 gnews hits... of which at least two are press releases (hard for me to tell on the third; not English.) -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 05:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as per above. User also seems to be simply generating a significant amount of spam articles which have all been csd g11'ed. Tiggerjay ( talk) 08:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Rlendog ( talk) 14:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Colonization of stars

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

This article claims to be about colonization of stars, but the text refers to colonization of other planetary systems. I am not aware that there is any plan to colonize stars. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 04:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Comment the nominator is being overly literal minded. Colonizing the stars means colonizing star systems other than the Sun's, which would involve colonizing the planets of those stars. 65.95.13.213 ( talk) 05:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect no content in the article. This topic is covered in the article Space colonization. 65.95.13.213 ( talk) 05:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Robert Sepulveda Jr.

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

No reliable sources to establish notability of an individual. Zero google news/books hits found for the full name, and web hits show images, youtube videos, and model/"socialite" websites, which don't mean much for notability.

Admittedly I gutted the article of most of the claims to notability, but they were claims that the father is minorly notable in a very minor little Florida town, as well as some sort of weird claim about feudal Notability through a vice vicar in Puerto Rico in the 1500s- in any case, notability is not inherited anyhow. tedder ( talk) 03:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, but still. And how dare you, sir! tedder ( talk) 04:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom: not notable given the absence of evidence. Drmies ( talk) 04:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Kanibal Holokaust

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

No assertion of notability — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ( talk) 19:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Community Education Computer Society

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

article has existed since 2006 with no substantial improvement. fails WP:ORG. 1 gnews hit, and google mainly reveals directory listings. LibStar ( talk) 02:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Franklin Reyes

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

I do not believe this individual meets the criteria of WP:ATHLETE. Google search for "Franklin Reyes" baseball does not come up with any helpful results. He won MVP of a tournament, but that's not enough. Being the fiance of a famous person does not make one automatically notable. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 02:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment This whole thing seems a bit shady. The link to the story of his fiancee's death is a message board post -- Cheron's page does not list her as deceased, and I can find no stories on Google of Cheron's death at all. I can also find no stories stating that Cheron is engaged to this person outside that same message board post and one user-provided answer on Answers.com. I smell hoax. - Dewelar ( talk) 15:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - That he won the MVP of this tournament seems true [33] but I don't know that that is enough to confer adequate notability. Who he is engaged to is irrelevant. Rlendog ( talk) 15:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG catastrophically. I'm not even sure the tournament itself is notable. Beyond the USCAA's own website, there doesn't seem to be much information available on it on the web. I certainly can't find any information on Reyes himself beyond that brief mention. Even if everything that was removed from the article due to possible WP:BLP violations is correct, that still wouldn't add up to notability. - Dewelar ( talk) 17:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not meet WP:NSPORTS for college athletes as the MVP award mentioned is not from a notable tournament. Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage from WP:Reliable sources. — Bagumba ( talk) 17:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Dewelar said it best, so I'll QFT: "Fails WP:GNG catastrophically." –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Ian Jobling

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

Non-notable person; I can't find significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources. The only significant coverage is from the SPLC, here: [34] The article also links to articles from the Washington Post and New York Times, but neither one is actually about him; one only mentions him briefly, the other one not at all. The rest of the sources in the article are self-published. I can find nothing to suggest that he is in any way notable. Robofish ( talk) 00:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

(Someone claiming to be the subject of the article posted on the talk page linking to several other sources discussing him, but I don't believe any of them meet our reliable source guidelines.) Robofish ( talk) 01:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I checked the Proquest newspaper archive and the only significant references there to an "Ian Jobling" are to a minor UK politician.   Will Beback  talk  02:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability; no significant coverage. -- Orange Mike | Talk 12:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO, no meaningful coverage in reliable sources ukexpat ( talk) 15:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Your hatred of his politics cannot justify blacklisting him [ WP:I just don’t like it]. (Orangemike, did you really condemn the subject as “racist”? Did you also organize this cyber-lynch party?)

Being condemned by the SPLC alone would more than justify keeping him.

By the way, all three articles in the New York Times and Washington Post that Jobling’s WP bio links to discuss his scholarly article. That two of the authors cited Jobling’s two co-authors, but slighted him is not his fault, but is typical of what passes for “reliable sources” at WP.

http://www.ur.umich.edu/0304/Oct27_03/14.shtml

Under this “Ian Jobling” (excluding references to others by that name, such as the Australian sports scholar), Google Books lists 10 books and two journals, almost all of which are scholarly works, which cite him.

http://www.google.com/#q=%22Ian+Jobling%22&hl=en&biw=1419&bih=813&prmdo=1&tbm=bks&prmd=ivnso&ei=dnTcTZ-6FMO_tgevoazCDw&start=80&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=791c694ea90e5cd2

Under this “Jobling, Ian” (excluding references to others by that name, such as the Australian sports scholar, and previously cited works), Google Books lists an additional six scholarly books which cite him. (I could be off in my count by one.)

http://www.google.com/#q=%22Jobling,+Ian%22&hl=en&biw=1419&bih=813&prmdo=1&tbm=bks&ei=-nXcTcruCdDdgQflibkV&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=791c694ea90e5cd2

That makes for 15 or 16 books, two journal articles, two New York Times articles, and one Washington Post article.

Over three years ago, Jobling made the best case I can think of for his notability, on his talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ian_Jobling

Academics

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)

Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.

[ [35]] 74.72.23.106 ( talk) 03:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Note: I've reminded user:74.72.23.106 to avoid canvassing.   Will Beback  talk  05:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
reply to personal attack - I certainly would classify him as racist; I also regard water as wet, consider the Pope an obvious papist, and don't think that Genghis Khan was born in Hawaii. I didn't organize any parties, although I am about to leave for a science fiction convention where I anticipate parties will be held. -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Note: To what “personal attack” would you be “replying,” Orange Mike? Ian Jobling charged you with making personal attacks against him. When I asked you if the charge was true, you confessed, but sought to flip your guilt into a claim that you were being victimized by a “personal attack.”
  • Note 2: I reminded User:Will Beback that he is an obsessive canvasser, and should not be warning others not to engage in his own favorite behavior. Will Beback canvassed Mild Bill Hiccup to threaten me, and is engaged in retaliation against me, for my opposition to the attempted political blacklisting of Ian Jobling. Gee whiz, guys, you can’t tolerate even a single voice of dissent. So much for “building consensus.” 74.72.23.106 ( talk) 14:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • For the record, I never canvassed Mild Bill Hiccup or contacted him in any way.   Will Beback  talk  21:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
      • I can confirm that. Nor have I ever contacted Will Beback. I tried to explain this to 74.72.23.106 on my talk page. Mild Bill Hiccup ( talk) 09:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
      • So how did he know to retaliate against me? The Psychic Friends Network went belly-up a long time ago. And when did you stop canvassing? 74.72.23.106 ( talk) 07:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. He has published a few academic papers in recognized journals, but that is insufficient to meet the standards of WP:ACADEMIC, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:BK. Qworty ( talk) 20:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete He co-wrote (third author out of three) one academic paper, in Human Nature; it has been cited 31 times, completely failing WP:ACADEMIC. His non-academic writing has not received enough attention to meet WP:AUTHOR. The claim in the article that "The Washington Post[2] and the New York Times[3][4] devoted articles to the piece" in Human Nature is false. Reference 4 actually is about the article but quotes only the primary author, mentioning Jobling in passing; references 2 and 3 do not appear to mention Jobling at all. He personally has not received enough attention to pass WP:GNG; Google News Archive finds several other Ian Joblings more notable than he is. BTW this isn't about blacklisting him over his politics; we have articles about all kinds of people who hold fringe or even despicable views. This is about meeting Wikipedia's criteria, and he doesn't. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Science fiction convention. The merge target isn't clearly signposted so use your imagination folks Spartaz Humbug! 15:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Peace-bonding

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

This topic is not notable. The vast majority of the article is unreferenced, and the main Google Books source which the last AfD was predicated on (interestingly, nobody has bothered to add it into the article) clearly does not contain the significant coverage which is required, since it doesn't address the topic of peace-bonding "directly and in detail." ╟─ Treasury Tag► consulate─╢ 08:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, this isn't really much more than a long dicdef in this form. (Willing to reconsider if there's substantial rewriting before the end of the AfD)-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, although I'm sad to see that this never got the much-needed revision after the last AFD. In addition to the source in the article and the other mentioned by the nominator, there is also a passage by Pournelle that I mentioned in the first AFD. I do not have access to that source at this time, and the text is not available online, but he discusses the topic in the context of conventioneering history. I remain convinced that the 1980s fantasy/convention fanzines have a wider discussion of this history; there was at one point considerable debate over how to accommodate armed costumes without creating a public safety hazard, and such sources are the likeliest place to find documentation of it. However, they were not in general well preserved or well-indexed, and I have not had success in that regard. A more typically historical reference is the discussion of friðbond (with several spelling variants) in several Icelandic sagas, as discussed in this book (pp.194-185) and several other sources. There is some suggestion online that a similar practice may have been instituted in Spain during the duello period, but I'm still looking for reliable documentation there. Regardless, although there do not appear to be any sources dedicated to the topic in the main, that's not a requirement under the notability guideline. Serpent's Choice ( talk) 16:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    Indeed. The requirement is actually that multiple reliable sources give the subject significant coverage, discussing it directly and in detail. That simply does not seem to be the case here. ╟─ Treasury Tag► most serene─╢ 19:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into some larger article such as Science fiction convention or Cosplay pending improvement. The custom and concept certainly exist so turning the topic into a redlink would be unhelpful to our readership. Colonel Warden ( talk) 06:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The current article content is worth having and could certainly be referenced better than at present - bit would really work better as a section of an article, in something like Weapons policy (conventions), than as a free-standing one (peace-bonding is one, but not the only, solution to the problem it addresses). However, as that article doesn't currently exist, I would suggest, in order of desirability, expand and move this article into such a more general article, merge per Colonel Warden if a suitable article can be agreed on, or weak keep. PWilkinson ( talk) 00:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment if this is deleted, it should redirect to Peace bond (Canada). 65.95.13.213 ( talk) 05:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as above, not useful for readers in its current form Shii (tock) 12:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Comment if it is merged, a disambiguation page should replace it, instead of a redirect, unless it redirects to the Canadian article, where a hatnote could be added. 65.95.13.213 ( talk) 04:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge I actually came to this article through a Google search and it was useful to me as I didn't know what the dickens the practice peace bonding was, now I do. Given that the purpose of WP is to educate and that's what this article does so I would suggest that a straight delete to be a bad outcome. If it's insufficiently notable to retain it's own article it should at the very least be merged into another and redirected/disambiguated. Xmp ( talk) 23:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    So WP:ITSUSEFUL then? ╟─ Treasury Tag► Not-content─╢ 07:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Comparison of development estimation software

Comparison of development estimation software (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Original reasoning was Not need only three notable software items. See also link is sufficient.. Article also has no sources and so qualifies as WP:OR.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 03:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply


  • Keep This article is important in my opinion, it covers software which are hard to compare for non-professionals, The validity of this article is the same as existing software articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_project_management_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_server_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_screencasting_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_revision_control_software and many other articles Franklin90210 ( talk) 14:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

2006 Jujutsu World Championships

2006 Jujutsu World Championships (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable championship without sources to back its notability. Dwanyewest ( talk) 01:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Papaursa ( talk) 03:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I found (and added to the article) the sponsoring organization (the JJIF). I believe the JJIF is notable (although its article could use additional sourcing), so I believe its world championship is notable. It would be nice if additional sources could be found for this article. Papaursa ( talk) 03:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep World championships seem notable to me. I wonder about a World championship that only seems to include Europeans, but it's clearly an international competition from a known organization. Article needs better sources. Astudent0 ( talk) 14:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Summary of a specific sports event, might be of use, deletion would accomplish nothing. Carrite ( talk) 00:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The Bash (band)

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

I could not find sufficient evidence of notability of this band under wp’s notability rules, including sufficient multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable sources that are independent from the band ensemble itself. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche ( talk) 00:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 00:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Several searches show sufficient notoriety in accordance with wp's notability rules. "Snooki" of Jersey Shore fame was in the group for a brief period of time, and the group was mentioned in "This Is it", the Michael Jackson documentary/movie. Group is very well known in America as well as Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.223.193 ( talk) 06:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC) — 24.46.223.193 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Please point us to the RSs that support your assertions. Tx.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 06:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no notability here, large parts of the article is just made up. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. no evidence Snooki was in the band. duffbeerforme ( talk) 09:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article is full of made-up nonsense, has no sources other than the band itself and a Facebook page, and the supposed "source" for the claim Snooki was in the band is just a group on Facebook. The content is not encyclopedic, there are no valid sources, the topic is not notable, the article is poorly written and full of obvious untruths, and it is shameless self-promotion. -- Yetisyny ( talk) 16:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The Shipwrecks

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

I could not find sufficient evidence of notability of this band under wp’s notability rules, including multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable sources that are independent from the band ensemble itself. Others are welcome to try. It has been tagged for notability since 2008. Epeefleche ( talk) 00:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 00:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Re-checked. Unable to find any evidence of notability. Bongo matic 00:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ( talk) 19:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Larne Cricket Club

Larne Cricket Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Laurelvale Cricket Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Portadown Cricket Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Templepatrick Cricket Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a professional club, and playing in the third tier of a provincial league, does not pass WP:CLUB or WP:GNG, also nominating Laurelvale Cricket Club, Portadown Cricket Club & Templepatrick Cricket Club for the same reason. Mtking ( talk) 10:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

These pages should not be deleted because the articles do indicate how or why the subjects are important or significant: they say that the clubs play in the NCU Senior League, i.e. they are senior cricket clubs in Ireland, the highest status of cricket club in Ireland (as opposed, e.g. to junior clubs). All senior cricket clubs in Ireland deserve at least a stub, just as all senior football clubs have one. Clubs in lower tiers of this league may progress to the second and first tiers. Mooretwin ( talk) 10:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope ( talk) 12:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep - sufficient notable material is available for all. They play in a provincial (and not provisional) league, much like most sport within Ireland. Off the top of my head for example, Irish internationals Noel and Alan Nelson both played at Laurelvale and there is plenty of other source material to bolster these articles. Tough to AGF when you see hasty tagging like this, and obvious from response that knows nothing of the subject matter. Taking the attitude that these clubs are non notable shows ignorance of the set up in Ireland. Cregagh, for instance, currently lag in Section 3, but were until the 70s one of top clubs, with the likes of Irish internationals like Charlie Corry and Frank Fee playing for them. At the same time in the 70s Carrickfergus were in the bottom league and are now in the top section and have had internationals such as South African AB de Villiers and New Zealander Andre Adams play for them, as well as Irish international Ryan Eagleson. Weejack48 ( talk) 14:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Spell checker error aside I was unable to find anything that fit the WP:CLUB or WP:GNG test for them, if you can then I will haply withdraw the nomination. As for the clams of past top players playing then that is a case of WP:INHERITED. Mtking ( talk) 23:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
It took approximately ten minutes to source and insert content and sources for the bottom nominated article on your list - without searching mountain high and low for the material. I know that sufficient and notable content is available for all the senior cricket clubs within Ireland without much effort. This is the layer of clubs that provide the players for the Irish national side that competed in the recent World Cup. The content added was all I had time to include in the short space of time available. As for your top players comment, this is laughable. In essence this is what all sporting clubs claim, as the performance of those top players contributes to the success (or failure) and notability of the sporting club in the first place. Also relying on web searches you can easily fall into the WP:RECENT trap. Weejack48 ( talk) 07:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
With the possiable exception of two LOCAL news stories ( Historic day for Templepatrick Cricket Club and Further Financial Investment in Templepatrick Cricket Club) None of those are Significant coverage that sources address the subject directly in detail (see WP:GNG) and WP:CLUB Mtking ( talk) 21:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
WikiProject Cricket has devised notability guidelines. For clubs, while there is no specific guideline for Irish cricket, there is for English cricket. The guideline for English cricket is that any club that belongs to "one of the Bradford Cricket League, the Lancashire League, the Central Lancashire League or one of the ECB Premier Leagues is notable. In other words, clubs belonging to senior provincial leagues are notable. The provincial leagues in Ireland are the equivalent of these leagues in England and, therefore, clubs belonging to those leagues meet the notability guidelines. Mooretwin ( talk) 10:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
You can not compare sports leagues across countries like that, for example a soccer club playing at the 7 level in England could be considered notable but one playing at the 5 level in say Iraq would not be. Mtking ( talk) 21:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Regardless of your views on Iraqi football, the senior provincial leagues for club cricket in Ireland are the equivalent of the regional leagues for club cricket in England. Mooretwin ( talk) 08:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC) reply
But here is the problem in your logic and you cannot have it both ways - the Lancashire, Bradford and Central Lancashire are provincial leagues that are essentially amateur in status with in most cases one or two professionals employed at most. Also, please go to some other sporting club articles and remove the details of players/members and coaches and claim that their achievements are inherited by the club article. Your statement on sources is akin to saying (excuse the hyperbole here) that Alex Ferguson cannot be mentioned in the Manchester United article because the club is only inheriting his coaching achievements, utter rubbish. Weejack48 ( talk) 21:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
No it is not what I am saying, however if Ferguson, after leaving Man U went to coach his Pub team, that would not make his pub team notable. Mtking ( talk) 22:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Agreed - but I fail entirely to see how this last point is relevant to your argument. (Mind you an article for the pub team might be notable given the likely news coverage!) The club coach does not carry out his work in a vacuum and you would appear to be dismissive of this in order to prove you point and bolster your case. He coaches his fellow club members and his progress and achievement with his club has gained European wide recognition and coverage. How is this (as you claim) inherited coverage any different from an MLB club claiming in their article the achievements of a transient athlete winning a Cy Young or MVP award based on their individual performance. Finally the English amateur provincial leagues you feel are not the equivalent of the Irish Leagues, are not even the feeder sides to the English national team, they have the County sides in between. The Irish players, with very very few exceptions made their breakthrough to the Irish side whilst playing in the Irish provincial leagues. An Irish side that for your info defeated the English team in the last Cricket World Cup. Weejack48 ( talk) 07:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The individual players in these clubs are agreed to be not notable, but it is reasonable that the clubs should be. People like me not familiar with the sport or the area but seeing a mention of them would expect to find at least some information --the above discussion of just what their role is is useful, and belongs in the articles DGG ( talk ) 14:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep these four articles, at least for now. When this AfD began, each of the four nominated articles was a very short stub. Since then, one of the four articles has been expanded significantly, which leads me to believe that there may be coverage out there for each of these clubs. Cricket clubs do not have to be professional to garner coverage in secondary sources. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 17:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, and a question. First, I know nothing at all about cricket. The statement above by Mooretwin (the senior provincial leagues for club cricket in Ireland are the equivalent of the regional leagues for club cricket in England) was left uncontested, and per WP:CRIN that would pretty much wrap it up. Even more, if it is the case that the there are more league "levels" (is that the word?) in England than Ireland, that would only make the Irish league more "professional" than their English counterpart (since they're closer to the top brass). So, is that statement accurate? - frankie ( talk) 23:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Amy Miller (actress)

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

Non-notable actress sourced only to IMDB. Doesn't seem to pass the guidelines for entertainers and no reliable sources to be found. - Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. She had the role of a primary antagonist in a nationally broadcast and internationally known television program.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 18:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 23:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
May I suggest you see previous deletions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewen Macintosh? WP:ENTERTAINER says that an actor must have had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."; one show is not "multiple". Also, the general notability guidelines require significant discussion in third party sources, which are non-existant here. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Contredanse (band)

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

Non-notable, as far as I can tell after having undertaken a wp:before search. Epeefleche ( talk) 18:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 12:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The original AfD discussion of this article was a decision to "keep, assuming that the article can be expanded." In the four years since that decision, it's been virtually untouched; one editor fixed some typos, a bot dropped by, and that's it. I think that's as much confirmation as you can get that the article can't be expanded, which makes the basis for the original decision to keep it invalid.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 03:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The Chestnut King

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

No worthy content. It mentions that the books exists, but nothing more. Night of the Big Wind ( talk) 19:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Comment That this article is currently only a stub is no reason to delete it. RichardOSmith ( talk) 19:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 12:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep no content is not a reason to delete, and the author and his work appear notable, Sadads ( talk) 13:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is a significant number of blog reviews, some may fail WP:RS but they all were independent, and being part of notable trilogy (with the first book already lined up for a film adaptation) makes this article the more valid, unless the idea is to cover all three books in one single article (which I don't think would be convenient) - frankie ( talk) 00:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Jaroslav Pavelka

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

Non-notable hockey player. Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Iftelse ( talk) 20:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 12:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 12:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Doesn't appear to have appeared in the Extraliga yet and doesn't seem to be such a highly rated prospect that he would be likely to be a NHL 1st round draft pick this year, so not meeting WP:NHOCKEY. If someone can find Czech sources that show he meets WP:GNG would be glad to reconsider, but I didn't find sufficient English sources. Rlendog ( talk) 18:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Vendetta Pro Wrestling

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP. The references in the article are trivial mentions and/or unreliable sources that do not establish notability. The exception is the article in the Santa Maria Times but that appears to be a local publication for Santa Maria, California where the promotion is headquartered, and therefore doesn't do much to establish notability either. Nikki♥ 311 21:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Nikki♥ 311 21:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Nikki♥ 311 21:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Only a couple of passing mentions and the rest are listings of events on targeted forums - frankieMR ( talk) 23:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Contentious ridings in the Canadian federal election, 2011

Contentious ridings in the Canadian federal election, 2011 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Per discussion at Talk:Contentious ridings in the Canadian federal election, 2011, the basic problem here is that this serves as a record of the conventional wisdom that was in place before election day — basically relying on media analysis of "ridings to watch" that was published during the campaign — but falls flat on its ass the moment you try to compare it to anything that actually happened on election day.

Neither the Conservatives nor the New Democrats, for example, succeeded in winning even half of their supposed "target" seats — and yet both parties significantly overperformed in seats that weren't considered viable "targets" before the election began; the NDP, in particular, took just seven of their 15 official "target" seats, and yet won about 60 seats in which conventional wisdom was expecting them to finish completely off the radar. In other words, they won just short of nine times as many seats that aren't listed here as they did seats that are. The Liberals, meanwhile, not only failed to take any of their "target" seats, but completely failed to win a single seat in the entire country, "target" or not, that they didn't already hold before the election started. And for their part, the Greens have two "target" seats listed here, and won one of them — but the one they actually won is listed here as an artificial "special case", i.e. sink maximum resources into getting the leader a seat, which doesn't actually meet any of the criteria listed at the top of the article as defining a conventional "target seat".

So, basically, this article is applying conventional wisdom to a transformational wave election which literally ate the stuffing out of conventional wisdom — it tells you a whole lot about things that didn't happen, and almost nothing about things that did, and consequently it can never be a helpful article for future students of the Canadian federal election, 2011 to actually peruse. It's a record of what the pundits were predicting might happen, but it will never be able to provide a useful analysis of what actually did happen. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 23:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - I hate the title of this. "Contentious" ridings implies that someone is passing editorial judgement on which particular ridings are competitive and which are not, which is pretty much the definition of Original Research in the bad, verboten sort of way. Carrite ( talk) 00:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
That's exactly it — the only concession to neutrality here is that it's not strictly our own editorial judgement, but a compilation of other sources' editorial judgements. And there's nothing particularly notable about that in principle. Bearcat ( talk) 00:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Yeah, the thing that tears me, my friend, is that there actually is such a thing as "competitive" electoral districts and this isn't terrible political science. Which is why I weeble and wobble in the wind on the Keep or Delete question. No opinion at this point. Carrite ( talk) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
That's true. But the problem here is that the majority of the electoral districts that were actually competitive in this election were not the ones that were predicted to be competitive districts before the election. This is a list of the latter, following an election in which the former and the latter bore so little relation to each other that a list of the latter is simply useless trivia. Bearcat ( talk) 01:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Screw it, Keep. This is a list, pretty clearly defined, and sourced, but I totally understand where this nomination is coming from. Carrite ( talk) 00:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite ( talk) 15:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 00:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. With the political shift that this election saw, the ridings that were close in the last election, weren't in this one. 117Avenue ( talk) 03:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the essential problem with this article is that it's essentially a meta-analysis of news from sometime before 9:30PM EST on 2 May 2011. By roughly an hour later, everything in this article was outdated. WP:NOTNEWS seems to apply here, in addition to Bearcat's summary above. →  ROUX  ₪ 10:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The list that's provided was pro-forma; there is no indication about whether or not the results were close in each case. A better idea would have been a list of ridings that turned out to be close when the smoke of the battle cleared. PK T(alk) 15:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Candid Camera (Australian photographic exhibition)

Candid Camera (Australian photographic exhibition) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. it is not common practice to create separate articles for a 3 month art gallery exhibition unless it gets significant coverage, given that galleries hold exhibitions all the time. the best coverage i could find in Australian news siteswas a photo slide show [36] and a competition to win tickets [37]. LibStar ( talk) 00:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I agree, one exhibition is not worthy of its own article, unless it was very extraordinary and/or influential. Having said that, there is tons of WP:Other stuff that also should go. BigJim707 ( talk) 00:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Common practice and notability are not even remotely the same thing, but LibStar tries to link the two. The only relevant question is notability. The gallery in question is undoubtedly one of the most important in Australia, and the exhibition was an enquiry into the Australian nation's social history via a 30-year retrospective of work by noted social documentary photographers such as Max Dupain and David Moore (photographer). True, galleries hold exhibitions all the time, but nationally important art galleries don't hold exhibitions as significant as this one all the time. According to WP:BEFORE, LibStar has a duty to investigate the article history and the subject before nominating it for deletion and, as part of that, make a 'good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist'. But the reality is that LibStar hasn't even properly read the article, which includes a link to an 850 word review in the leading daily newspaper published in one of Australia's state capitals (Australia only has one truly national general interest daily newspaper). Though the links aren't yet attached, there is plenty of other coverage, including a television interview of a participating photographer that was carried by the Australian national broadcaster. The link to that was recently pasted in another of LibStar's AfDs, as part of the refutation by another user and in part of the discussion that LibStar explicitly responded to, and LibStar should therefore be well aware of it. Again, LibStar seems to be deliberately ignoring evidence rather than trying to find it so that the article can be strengthened. The call for deletion is unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueThird ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The gallery in question is undoubtedly one of the most important in Australia may be true but this discussion is about the notability of this specific exhibition. LibStar ( talk) 03:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • That's a dishonest argument, LibStar. You're trying to suggest that I don't go on to address the question of notability, when I start to do so in the very same sentence that you selectively quote. BlueThird ( talk) 04:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
      • any coverage outside of Adelaide? LibStar ( talk) 04:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
        • The fact that the link above says Adelaide at the end is completely irrelevant. Here's a link to the same interview on the ABC's local station in Oodnawoopwoop. As I'm sure you'll realise, that link certainly doesn't mean that Oodnawoopwoop exists. The interview is offered, by Australia's national broadcaster on its national website, to anyone who wants to see it, wherever they may be in the world. BlueThird ( talk) 07:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
          • Source: Stateline South Australia. LibStar ( talk) 07:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
            • Once again: produced by Australia's national broadcaster, offered for global access on its national website. BlueThird ( talk) 09:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
anything published online can be viewed globally online. that does not make it internationally notable. LibStar ( talk) 06:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • important art galleries don't hold exhibitions as significant as this one all the time. where is the evidence of this? I don't see it being covered anywhere outside of Adelaide, surely such a claim would be backed with national coverage of such a super signficant exhibition. LibStar ( talk) 07:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Here's a link to a 1600 word review, carried in both the print and and online editions of Australia's only national newspaper, written by their national art critic. BlueThird ( talk) 09:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 00:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 00:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete. It's my view that the sources mentioned aren't quite enough to meet WP:N. The three sources given here and in the article do discuss the exhibition in some depth but I don't think that's quite enough as exhibitions etc are always going to get a certain amount of "what's on" coverage and the organisers will obviously be pushing for that sort of coverage. As such, ideally, I'd like to see coverage from after the exhibition has finished. I will happily reconsider my !vote if such sources, or a significant number of extra sources like the current one, are found. Dpmuk ( talk) 10:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A modest article making modest claims, on an event written up (getting quite a bit more than "a certain amount of 'what's on' coverage") in one of Australia's few major national newspapers. Ideally, I too would like to see "coverage from after the exhibition [...] finished"; however, coverage need not be ideal in order to be adequate. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • ARTICLE COMPLETELY REWRITTEN. It now places Candid Camera in context within the overall subject area: social documentary photography in Australia. What was implicit, for someone who read the article with some existing knowledge of the subject and checked the references, is now explicit. Noted on a sentence-by-sentence basis; linked whenever possible. I’ve tried to make sure that the other edits have been carried forward, where that’s appropriate, but apologise if I haven’t got them all. Can I suggest that anyone who has commented or voted so far take another look? My personal feeling is that it's too early for 'after the event' coverage. Any journalist writing about the show now would simply make readers wonder why they weren't told about it at the time. The original Six Photographers only lasted a few weeks, if that, and probably only came to be seen for how important it really was many years, even decades, later. That said, I'm entirely confident, and hope to have shown, that as photographic exhibitions go, this one was extremely ambitious. BlueThird ( talk) 07:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. There are numerous hits that cover the event but most do it as routine journalism, and there's nothing that points to any lasting significance (i.e. to the point where notability becomes not temporary). The usual caveats applies - frankie ( talk) 10:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • The exhibition closed less than one year ago, and so there has not been much time for mention of it (or more) to appear in books on Australian photography. (And there are few such books: When I looked for some three years or so ago, I found just two, neither of them mentioned in this article and both of them seriously flawed, to put it politely.) -- Hoary ( talk) 00:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. After BlueThird's recent reworking, the article strikes me as exemplary. This doesn't mean that it is exemplary: I haven't chased up the references and done the other work that I might do if, say, it were more ambitious, longer, and a FA candidate. But it's at the point where the AfD looks absurd. Or rather, it would look absurd but for either or both of two objections. The first is that such exhibitions are routine. The second is that no deep coverage has been dug up. Neither objection can be laughed off so quickly. However, I (who don't matter) and the world in general (which does matter) can laugh off Wikipedia as a whole, for its combination of (a) a demand for proof of importance of any material such as this, and (b) the warm and undiscriminating welcome it gives to stuff that appeals to little boys. ¶ No, this is not an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument; it is a WHYDOESWIKIPEDIAWELCOMECRAPMORETHANNONCRAP point. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the vote of confidence, Hoary – it's much appreciated. I beg to differ, however, on the idea that exhibitions like this are routine. I only wish they were. I'm not going to pretend that I know of every exhibition of social documentary photography held in the Australia since it first started to become recognised way back when, but a very quick check on Google produced an astonishing result. A search on "documentary photography australia exhibition" produces the article we're talking about as the first result, which obviously suggests that exhibitions like this are rather unusual, at least in this part of the world. And that's before you start narrowing it down to exhibitions that are ambitious enough to attempt a 30-year retrospective dedicated to Australia's best work in the field. Something else that astonished me: neither the In Our Time exhibition nor Manchester's book get a mention on Wikipedia. I'll try to get round to those at some point. ... added by BlueThird at 06:36/06:37, 30 May 2011
  • I'm sorry, I expressed myself poorly. I meant something along the lines of: exhibitions of this degree of interest to somebody are routine. (Or so I guessed; I don't know for sure.) I did not want to suggest that Australian exhibitions this significant of photography, let alone those of what might be called social documentary photography, are routine. Even before I came across this AfD, I had good reason to think that they weren't. ¶ In general, photographs (whether prints from darkroom or inkjet printer, or reproductions in books etc) are poorly represented in WP. Any historian of photography could name a lot of photo exhibitions that were important for bringing new light on this, revaluating that; but WP will tell you far more about any episode of Family Guy than about any photo exhibition. -- Hoary ( talk) 10:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The rewritten article now has an adequate level of citations. PRL42 ( talk) 16:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I don't see strong enough arguments to delete. WP:GNG? Naah, with citations, it looks respectable enough. Tony (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Rewritten article clearly presents proof of notability and non-trivial coverage. Qrsdogg ( talk) 14:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Michelle Chang

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

Not notable person. Does not meet the criteria for notable academic. Mootros ( talk) 00:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - No significant assertion of notability. Carrite ( talk) 00:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 00:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Would the nominator care to give us his views on the Google Scholar results for M C Y Chang, under which name the subject publishes. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC). reply
  • Comment - That information does improve the landscape in Googleland. What's the notability hook though? Is there an aspect of her work that is cutting edge? Carrite ( talk) 14:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. It's still pretty early in her career, but she's already getting high citation counts for her work, making a plausible case for WP:PROF#C1. The highest-cited is a paper in Nature with nearly 500 citations, but I'm less convinced by that one than by some of the others, because it has many authors with her name not in a prominent place. The variation in authors among her different works suggests to me that she has a strong independent research program going and is not just riding someone else's coattails. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. GS h index of 23, but in a very highly cited field. What does WoS say? Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC). reply
  • Keep I agree that the case can be made here that she meets WP:PROF, or is very close to doing so. Qrsdogg ( talk) 15:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Very weak keep GS has a very high rate of double counts. WoS lists 21 papers, 1163 total citations, h of 13. A few papers with very high citation counts (329, 273, 105), but she's only a junior author on those (not first, certainly not last). I don't really think she's there yet, but it looks like it won't be long. -- Crusio ( talk) 15:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Transport in Equatorial Guinea#Railways. T. Canens ( talk) 06:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Rail transport in Equatorial Guinea

Rail transport in Equatorial Guinea (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no reason for having an article which basically says that there is no rail transport (and no plans for it) in a certain country Kimdime ( talk) 12:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 14:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Redirect–As there is a link to this article in the {{Africa in topic|Rail transport in}} navbox, it would

seem logical to perform a merge/redirect to [[Transport in Equatorial Guinea#Railways]].— RJH ( talk) 15:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Merge/Redirect per RJHall. Given the presence of many other "Rail transport in X" articles it's not an unreasonable search term. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There was once a railway there and I have updated the article to include this history. Colonel Warden ( talk) 06:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Redirect per RJHall. Adding the historic fact tripled the amount of sentences in this stub but there is still more than sufficient space at Transport in Equatorial Guinea#Railways. I do not see the deletion rationale refuted by CW's expansion. -- Pgallert ( talk) 11:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with redirect per RJHall. No point in maintaining a micro-stub when the info can be adequately presented elsewhere. Title is a reasonable search term. Mjroots ( talk) 18:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Colonel Warden's research provided a worthwhile addition, but there is not really enough here to justify a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_May_24&oldid=1142637224"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE