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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Index of Clipperton Island-related articles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

This is a list of extremely little use. It lists articles related to the remote Clipperton Island; however, one look at Category:Clipperton Island will show we only have two articles on Clipperton Island, and one of them is this one. There are no other directly relevant articles to link. Instead, this article links to such tangentially related topics as National Emblem of France, Western Hemisphere, Pacific Ocean and .fr. I understand this is meant to be one of a series of indexes (see Category:Indexes of articles by country) but in the case of Clipperton Island, we have so few articles on it there's entirely no need for it. Robofish ( talk) 23:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Alright, to be fair, it also links to the Clipperton Island category on Commons. But there are no useful links in this article that are not already in Clipperton Island. Robofish ( talk) 00:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete - this weird padded list of links ( Clipperton Island is linked a bunch of times through different piped names, same with France) should not be on the mainspace.-- 70.80.234.163 ( talk) 01:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete, without prejudice to re-creation in the future - a stripped-down list of links (that is, a list of links without paragraphical article prose) may be useful, but this "index" doesn't have enough meat to qualify even as a stub. There doesn't appear to be enough coverage on this topic to warrant an index at this time. So, I suggest we delete it, without prejudice to building a new one if and when there is enough coverage to warrant it. The Transhumanist 09:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete - An index article serves as a navigation aid to readers to find articles all related to a specific topic. This index is just a bizarre collection of vaguely related links that have been padded out to give the appearance of substance. -- Whpq ( talk) 14:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 19:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 19:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment why are indices in articlespace instead of book or portalspace? 184.144.163.181 ( talk) 05:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete There is no need or justification for this index. The subject is so straightforward and so limited, not even a DAB page would be justified. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:32, 12 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} 17:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Dario Piombino-Mascali (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Does not seem to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Rd232 ^talk 23:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete. It would be very unusual for such a recent PhD to have gained notability as an academic, and I can see no sources that indicate any possibilty that the subject is an exception. As an aside I would advise the subject, if he wants to be considered a serious academic rather than just another self-promoter, not to respond to invitations from vanity publishers such as Marquis Who's Who to create an entry. Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 19:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Has failed to make any impact on GS. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC). reply
• Delete. Clearly fails WP:Academic. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. He's received some press attention for Rosalia Lombardo but I think he fails WP:BIO1E in this respect, and there's not a lot of point in redirecting his article to hers. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^{( talk)} 19:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Unsure - I did several searches online, and he has been noted in lots of websites, but only has four scholar Ghits. I've asked User:DGG for his opinion. Bearian ( talk) 16:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Rosalia Lombardo, where he is covered adequately. Specialist in a narrow speciality, but not yet established as an authority. The strongest evidence is his co-authorship of the "Italy" chapter in The Routledge Handbook of Archaeological Human Remains and Legislation, but it's a 2011 book and its too soon to see if it will be a standard work. None of the arguments here give a reason against redirection, so, a/c/ WP:BEFORE, that would be the preferred way to go. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete I agree with David Eppstein. He got a bit of publicity (notably in National Geographic [1]) in connection with the Sleeping Beauty child, but he is really peripheral to her story, so a redirect is not indicated. Let him make his name academically, and create an article someday when he can pass the Google Scholar test. -- MelanieN ( talk) 04:12, 12 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} 17:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

NK Borac Banovci (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Article about a football club that does not show how it meets WP:ORG. Presently not listed at List of football clubs in Croatia and no indication that this team plays in any of the professional leagues in that country (claims to play in "County League" which isn't given on said list either). Non-English sources may exist, but I can't find anything to show notability. Note: I had tagged this for speedy A7, but improvements to the article seem to preclude that. Kinu  ^t/ _c 23:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• 4. County leauge (4 županijska liga) is the lowest league in Croatian football leuge. The first source is site which deals with events in these leagues. Another source is the official website of Municipality of Nijemci that talks about all the clubs from Municipality. Also, as far as I understand, is not necessary that the article has the highest importance that it should not delete according to the rules of Wikipedia that were attached to the proposal for delete. So that even a weaker team, which does not play in top leagues, if someone is at something interesting, could get an article on Wikipedia.

Finally, the article is still in its initial phase and of course it does not provide much information. Over time it can be improved and developed further (it is one of the best things on Wikipedia). I hope my statement will not be judged as aggressive, I mean it could be another solid article. Thank you for your time! User:MirkoS18 —Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC). reply

• Delete Amateur village club, with no evidence of notability. The article was tagged for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed without any explanation. In my opinion it does qualify for speedy deletion (under WP:CSD#A7), but since this discussion has been started I am willing to let it go its course, at least for a while, to see if anyone can provide any justification for keeping. (Note: Kinu says "no indication that this team plays in any of the professional leagues". This is not surprising, since the article states that the club is amateur: "Borac footballers take participation as volunteer and for their efforts do not receive financial benefits".) JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I haven't yet checked for sources indicating notability, so won't provide a bolded "keep" or "delete", but would like to correct the implication made by the nominator and JamesBWatson that a club has to be professional to be notable. There is no such requirement. Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment I don't see where I implied that. I said "Amateur village club, with no evidence of notability": I did not say "Amateur club, and therefore not notable". In most cases an amateur village club is not notable, but there certainly are exceptions. However, in this case there is no evidence that the club is notable, which is what I said: "with no evidence of notability". That is not by any stretch of the imagination the same as saying that an amateur club can never be notable, but mentioning that it is an amateur village club is relevant, because it makes it clear that there cannot be a presumption of notability, and that clear evidence is necessary. (My other comment was just an attempt to clarify a point made by Kinu, not part of my reason for deletion, which is why I parenthesised it.) JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 19:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• CommentTag for speedy deletion was removed because of this: Tag was added because the article did not contain any sources, tag was removed after sources was added. As the article wrote, the club plays in 4. County leauge (4 županijska liga) which is an integral part of the Croatian football league. Although the players are playing as volunteer, some of them continue to play in major clubs in Croatia or Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.147.104.90 ( talk) 20:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment I just saw that I was wrong all the time, Borac does not compete in the fourth but in the third county leauge (you could see that on croatian Wikipedia) http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/NK_Borac_Banovci . I will correct it.

User:MirkoS18

• Based on Croatian football league system, am I correct in assuming that the third county league is the 7th level of football in the Croatian system? -- Kinu  ^t/ _c 21:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Yes you are right. The third county leauge is the 7th level of football in the Croatian system of the professional leagues. User:MirkoS18 —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC). reply
• Delete 1. Fails to meet football-specific guidelines set at WP:FOOTYN - the club never appeared in the Croatian Cup and never competed in any national-level league competition (which would be one of the top two Croatian levels). FYI the top level is fully professional while the second and third level are semi-pro. Everything below that is considered amateur, and Borac Banovci is in the 7th level. 2. Also fails WP:GNG - absolutely no significant coverage in secondary sources such as any of the five Croatian national dailies. Timbouctou ( talk) 02:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• keep1.The article contains independent outside sources (On the official website of the Municipality which is an integral part of the Croatian state organization, and also on the site that specifically deals with issues related to third county leagues). The club competes in one of the Croatian Leagues (Although it is only the seventh in a row). Article with basic information about the club and also gives details about club's history, organisation. Notability is not the same as fame, this means that the article about the club does not must appear in any of five Croatian national dailies. There is one more source that I will add now in article http://www.tntl.hr/casopis/tintl_5.pdf . On 23. page is text obout matches in third county leagues (4 matches including match NK Borac Banovci), The article contains the names of the players, place were match was, the result, the situation on a table.-- 161.53.179.226 ( talk) 12:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• keep It would be great to make articles about other clubs in third county leauge. So than we will had better covered the entire Croatian football league-- 161.53.179.232 ( talk) 12:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Perhaps it would be "good" to do so, but the issue under discussion is whether this article satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. If you wish to argue that those criteria should be broadened, then you are very welcome to do so, but this is not the place to do it, as this deletion discussion will be decided on the basis of the current criteria. On a separate issue, are you (the editor saying "keep" from 161.53.179.232) the same person who said "keep" above from 161.53.179.226? Both the very similar IP addresses (both assigned to the same organisation) and your similar editing history strongly suggest that you may be. JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete - club doesn't compete at a sufficient level to be considered notable. Giant Snowman 16:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The club plays well below the level where there would be a presumption of notability per WP:FOOTYN, and I can see no independent reliable sources with significant coverage in the article, in this discussion, or in my own searches. Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete - There is no indication of significant coverage, meaning the club fails WP:GNG, and the club does play at a high enough level to be presumed notable. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 10:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete this article does not have enough references, so it fails GNG. I did tag it for speedy deletion, per A7, but it got Afd. ~~ EBE123~~ ^talk _Contribs 11:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• keepThe theme is solidly covered. The article provides important historical and other information about the club so it is (with sports), interesting also from historical aspect. That club is not famous means that it should be classified as low on the scale of importance in categories such as sport or Croatia. The article is better than many that I encountered on Wikipedia. By the way, I think that the references are satisfactory. It should be well thought out, and not rush with deletion because it would be a shame because of destroyed an source of interesting knowledge.-- Samuel VI ( talk) 12:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately all of that has little relation either to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria or to the reasons given above for deletion. However "solidly" the "theme" is covered, if the subject does not satisfy the notability guidelines then it does not qualify for an article. "The article is better than many that I encountered on Wikipedia" is not a reason for keeping it: see WP:OTHERSTUFF to see why. Finally, you may well see it as a "source of interesting knowledge", but unless it is a source of knowledge about a notable subject then that is irrelevant, and amounts to no more than saying that you personally like it. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^{( talk)} 14:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Hello people! I think it's pretty clear that this my article will be deleted. Of course I am not so happy because of that, but I think I can offer a compromise solution. I think it would be good to copy this article, to shorten it a bit, and then add into article Šidski Banovci. I hope you accept my "greenness" in editing Wikipedia as an excuse. Thank you for your patience and calmness.-- MirkoS18 ( talk) 20:24, 9 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Jason Narvy (  | 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 actor has never done anything other than Power Rangers. Consider a redirect. Full article sourced to imbd (when sources exists). Damiens.rf 21:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep Not sure how having only a single, relatively well-known role is relevant to notability. A Google News search produces 42 results. JPG-GR ( talk) 07:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 19:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Was a regular cast member on a notable TV series and appeared in the theatrically-released movies based on said series; sounds like it meets WP:ENTERTAINER to me. SPNic ( talk) 20:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Subject clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep - per above, but definitely needs more sources. Anoldtreeok ( talk) 08:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Notable, but needs a lot more sources. Doh5678 Talk 16:29, 12 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} 17:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Thomas Gardner (film producer) (  | 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 of notabilty... nothing on Google apart from this article and no references at all let alone reliable third party references. Teapot george ^Talk 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

This article has been deleted and recreated 8 times before. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Gardner_%28Director%29&redirect=no&action=edit&redlink=1 Teapot george ^Talk 21:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete - 14 year old film maker with no coverage in reliable sources and stuff that has been placed on youtube. -- Whpq ( talk) 14:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Addendum -- I forgot to mention that the strongest claim for notability (not that it is particularly strong) is that he "won the 2011 Keswick Film Festival with his Stop motion Animation short Larry and Steve" which I cannot verify. Assuming this is the festival in question, this would appear to be a false claim as there is no mention of his film in either the open or under 18 category for short films. -- Whpq ( talk) 14:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Well i was not completeley honest, i have not researched the winning entry of Larry and Steve propaly and i have checked on the keswick film festival website and it does not show, sorry for the mistake, but i have viewed the video and he has sent the video to aardman animations, that i can confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggy2746 ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - So which "local" film festival was it then? Since you haven't researched it, how do you know? -- Whpq ( talk) 18:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• My father was a judge there, he rated it 3/5. It was the Longton Film Festival, he retired there 6 months ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggy2746 ( talk • contribs) 19:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• I've gone and met Thomas Gardner, he was in new zealand working on a small film with peter jackson, he is a real nice bloke. His stop motion is very good and all i'm saying is, give the page a chance, i mean if its been made 8 times, he must be well known, otherwise people wouldn't make it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovetomg ( talk • contribs) 20:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

This is users only edit on Wikipedia. Teapot george ^Talk 21:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete and salt "i mean if its been made 8 times, he must be well known" - no. It means he and his school mates are persistent and won't quit posting this rubbish. Lads, believe me. You are NOT going to get this article to stay here. We might give something a chance if it came really close to the notability standards. This doesn't, and no related article that I've seen did either. "Gone and met" him - yeh. On your way to school. 3/5 at the Longton Film Festival? 3/5 at Cannes may be something of note. Which Longton? Or should that be Longtown? Any evidence apart from your dad (who only gave your mate 3/5? Shame on him!)? Be warned - continual adding of inappropriate pages can lead to blocking. Attempts to beat blocking in the course of vandalism can lead to banning. Telling lies doesn't do your case any good either. In New Zealand and "working on a small film with peter jackson" - is that the Peter Jackson of LOTR, or the one who videos weddings as a sideline to his computer repair business? "His stop motion is very good" - could be true. We've no evidence either way. But being good isn't enough without achievement and coverage in independent sources. You have to be very, very good to get anywhere beyond self-publishing on YouTube - and you have to have luck. There's few openings in the UK at present. When Thomas has actually achieved something worth noting (and which is provable independently to fit our standards), and assuming you all haven't been blocked, try then. That won't be for 10 years, and after a lot of training. And luck. Remember that Wikipedia is free, but it isn't free webspace. Stick to MySpace, Facebook and such for now. Peridon ( talk) 18:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Yes it was Peter Jackson from LOTR and I'm not a friend of his, just an admirer of his short films, which you will eventually say where did you see them, it was Longton not longtown and that bit when you said from my comment gone and met him, there was no need to make fun of it by saying on your way to school, I'm 24 for fuck sake. And when I met him and I did meet him, he said that he doesn't like his video on youtube because he never really wanted it published.

Please sign your posts with~~~~. As I asked above - which Longton? Can you supply a reference for the festival? If you are 24, my apologies. I was assuming that you were at school like Thomas presumably is. If he is as notable as you claim, there will be evidence for it outside of your opinion - which doesn't count as you are (so far as we can tell) not a reliable source according to WP:RS. Give us the evidence and make us look daft. Peridon ( talk) 19:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nominator. Considering the repeated re-creation of the article, Salt as well. Edward321 ( talk) 00:08, 11 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 Battle of the Little Bighorn#Aftermath. Arguably, the article content could be deleted under criterion A10; I've left the history intact. Either way, there's no need for a new article, particularly one with the concerns listed below, when there's already an article in very good condition on the event. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Legacy of the Battle of Little Big Horn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Essay with borderline POV-bait title. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

DELETE: Reads like a school essay. Missing Sourcing. Hasteur ( talk) 20:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Redirect(soft) to Battle of the Little Bighorn#Aftermath, don't think we need a separate article, especially when this one is unsourced, and really doesn't provide substantial additional coverage. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:46, 5 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 A7 - UtherSRG (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Sarthak mohapatra (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Looks like non-notable and self-promotion. -delete - UtherSRG (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete I believe this was copied from another website due to the formatting errors and the use of "Here we mention a few of the awards he was received in instrumental competitions…" This boy may be talented but I do not see the notability about him.--  CrossTempleJay  talk 21:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Blatant autobio of non-notable. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 22:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^{( talk)} 06:46, 6 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! 06:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Red and Black Ribbon (  | 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 third party sources support notability. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 22:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Merge to atheism. Would provide more context to that article. CycloneGU ( talk) 23:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Don't see anything worth merging. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of awareness ribbons. MKFI ( talk) 08:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 23:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to List of awareness ribbons. Instead of starting this AfD, the nom should have been bold and redirected it to the said article. -- Reference Desker ( talk) 05:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete - and no redirect. Is there even the faintest hint of actual awareness about this ribbon? I can't even find a single press mention. -- Whpq ( talk) 13:43, 3 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, Baseball Watcher 20:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Merge Should be added to the article on List of awareness ribbons.  CrossTempleJay  talk 21:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

It is already listed. MKFI ( talk) 19:24, 6 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 Nomination withdrawn. — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 11:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Laura Bryna (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Duplicate recreated not notable singer - not a single notable charted song - the album that is added was also just deleted at AFD - It didn't chart at all. [ Trying to Be Me - Off2riorob ( talk) 20:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep. Patently obvious that the nominator did not read the article and is assuming bad faith — when I removed the A10 and explained to him that it didn't apply, he moved straight to AFD. The last version was deleted mainly because it was a copyvio, and those who !voted "delete" obviously didn't look hard enough for sources. Whether or not she charted is immaterial; the presence of multiple, third party sources (including two reputable reviews of the album and plenty of articles from Country Standard Time) should easily be enough for both WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Otters want attention)} 20:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep. The previous article was properly deleted as an unsalvageable combination of copyvio text and heavy-duty spam. As I noted at the prior AFD, the subject appeared to be notable, satisfying the GNG, and TPH's overhaul has resolved the problems cited in the AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Digging up a few trivial reports and bloating a not notable singers life story when they haven't ever charted falsely represents them to the reader. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• What? It's possible to be notable and not have a charted single or album. I fail to see how this article is "bloating" or how the sources are "trivial". You're clearly disrupting to make a WP:POINT, and judging from your talk page, this isn't the first time. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Otters want attention)} 20:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• You can attack me I care less. The single is not notable and claiming our lowest level of GNG because its the only hurdle she might scrape over is a backward step from the recent deletion. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Tell me how an article with 12 sources is a "backward step" from a complete copyvio with no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Otters want attention)} 20:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Calm down, everybody. I think she clearly meets the GNG through newspaper coverage [2] and things like a New York magazine miniprofile [3], but there's nothing wrong with establishing notability strictly through the music press. Charting is significant because we infer coverage exists for a charting performer; it's not necessary in and of itself. The Velvet Underground were notable long before they charted, as were Patti Smith and the CBGBs crowd. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG/criterion 1 of WP:BAND. I see no reason to delete. Charting is an indication of notability, but merely one of many; It does not follow that not charting is an indication of a lack of notability. Charts measure commercial success, and not every musician is purely business-focused - many critically-acclaimed artists with plenty of coverage have had little or no chart success..-- Michig ( talk) 20:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Charts or no charts, the singer has been covered in multiple, independent reliable sources as listed in the article itself and in the additional refs provided by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above, which satisfies the requirements of the general notability guideline. 28bytes ( talk) 20:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• If your a singer and your music isn't notable and you have to gain entry through a few comments and promo articles its a sad song indeed. WP:GNG Off2riorob ( talk) 20:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• I would think that in most cases, a release on a notable label is sufficient even if the album doesn't chart. It is possible for a musician to be notable despite never charting an album; you may believe otherwise, but WP:BAND makes it pretty obvious that a charted single isn't 100% necessary, just reliable third party sources. WP:GNG trumps WP:BAND every time, and it's obvious she meets the former even if you don't think she meets the latter. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Otters want attention)} 20:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Well, you should take that up with the independent reliable sources who insist on generating third-party coverage of her despite her non-chartingness. 28bytes ( talk) 21:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

As I recall, Nick Drake never charted in his lifetime, but he received significant critical coverage and was notably influential by the time of his death (a sad song indeed, but for a different reason). The early history of the ECM jazz label is a litany of notable, widely reviewed music that never charted. Libraries and bookstores are full of notable books that never approach the best-seller lists. Commercial success is sufficient to establish notability, but not necessary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

There is nothing to compare notability levels here to Nick Drake - The idea that this subject will ever be notably influential is a stretch of imagination. If she ever becomes that then I will vote Keep myself. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep meets WP:MUSIC. Dragquennom ( talk) 20:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep Has received significant coverage in reliable sources. / ƒETCH COMMS / 22:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep Why would anyone even bother trying to AFD something with this many reliable sources clearly proving notability anyway? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 01:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep – Meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. In addition to the sources that TenPoundHammer has found, there are others such as this article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, this one in the Herald & Review, and this review in PopMatters. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep. TPH clearly is to be commended for the work he has done with this article. Notability has sufficiently been established in accordance with the general notability guidelines. Salute to TPH! Cind. amuse 03:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Kinda surprised the 1st close was delete.-- Milowent • ^{talk blp-r} 04:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Have to keep - While the Patriot-Legder (trust me, I used to live in Quincy) is the kind of newspaper the winos use to wrap their bottles with, and all the other sources are from some glorified country music blog, this is what scrapes by for WP:NMUSIC these days. A bit of WP:HOTTIE doesn't hurt either. Tarc ( talk) 04:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• note - this although a well supported keep discussion and I accept the comments and the consensus completely I made the nomination in good faith and still personally hold the position for which I nominated her - sayiing that - I withdraw the nomination allowing it to be closed as a speedy keep or as the closer decides - Off2riorob ( talk) 11:31, 6 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! 07:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

To quote from the only source for this BLP article: "This is my genealogy page with royal and noble family trees, including lists of rulers of many European countries. [...] Four photos of my son (part 22)". Anyone who doesn't see the problem, see WP:BLPSPS.

The self-published source could easily be replaced by a reliable source, as it doesn't say more than the one line in Debrett's does ("1c HRH Prince CONSTANTINE Alexios of Greece and Denmark, b 29 Oct 1998"). But that's rather pointless, as a single line like this is simply not the basis for notability, or for an article. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to condense information to make it easily digestible, not to make huge pseudo-articles out of basically nothing. The impressive list of godparents (this crowd must have scared the little child like hell) wouldn't help with the notability problem either, even if there were a source for it.

More formally, let me repeat what I said (uncontradicted) about one of his brothers:

He would never get an entry in Britannica or anything like it. At his age he would never even get a separate page in any genealogical work. He completely and utterly fails WP:GNG, and the other notability guidelines are just approximations to GNG whose purpose it is to avoid repetitive discussions in borderline cases. Therefore a notability guideline saying that second generation descendants of kings are automatically notable would be invalid. But it so happens that there is no such specific notability guideline. Let's check the (potentially) applicable parts of WP:BIO:

• WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources [...]." But: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." And this is explained further: "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing". — Here we only have a one-line directory entry, blown up to an article for no good reason. This is similar to the case of a film, which is not notable just because it appears in IMDB. Note that this is the main test. The below "additional criteria" are just for fine-tuning this and in some cases allow redirects for non-notable people.
• WP:ANYBIO: No well-known or significant award or honour, no widely recognised contribution to a field.
• WP:POLITICIAN: Arguably he is a politician because some people fantasize he might inherit the currently nonexistent office of a Greek king at some point. But he has not (1) held any office, is not (2) a major local political figure who received significant press coverage, and in a sense point 3 applies: "Just being [...] an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability [...]". His situation is analogous to that of a non-notable candidate for the presidency of a republic. Just being on the ballot is not enough.
• WP:BIO#Invalid criteria: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)"
• WP:BIO#Family: "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person"

To all this I could add that he is notable only for one event: his birth. So even if he were otherwise a borderline case, which he isn't, he would at most fall under WP:BLP1E. Hans Adler 20:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep I supported the deletion of his siblings but Prince Constantine is the future head of the Greek Royal House, his attendance at the wedding of the Duke of Cambridge was recorded on the official guestlist published while many people were missing, so has some notability in my opinion. - dwc lr ( talk) 21:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep As dwc lr said. Mr. D. E. Mophon ( talk) 22:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep Notable by standing in direct line of succession to the throne of Greece. Whilst I do not think he stands a cat in hell's chance of taking the throne, the family attracts continuing attention. Merging to a single article for the family might be an option, but keep for now. 'Not inherited' does not work for hereditary positions! -- AJHingston ( talk) 23:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Note: The above keep votes with no respect of policy and of human decency, which forbids pseudo-biographies of children whose appearance in reliable sources is restricted to utterly trivial coverage in Debrett's are obviously related to this. I have notified the BLP noticeboard, see WP:BLP#Pseudo-biography of a non-notable twelve-year-old "prince". Hans Adler 23:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

News articles on his christening was actually published in a number of newspapers (Belfast News Letter, The Scotsman, The Sun). I don’t think that’s something that is done for ‘non notable’ people personally. - dwc lr ( talk) 23:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The press is going to report on all sorts of things related to people like Constantine, but that doesn't make them notable. As an extreme example in illustration of my point, if the press reported that Constantine coughed without covering his mouth, would that constitute notability? At this point, his only notability is derivative.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I think stories about his education, christening and so on are notable. He is the future head of the Greek Royal Family it’s easier to add content as it becomes available as opposed to starting from scratch a few years from now scrambling around looking for information. - dwc lr ( talk) 02:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

″He is the future head of the Greek Royal Family″. No he isn't. Greece doesn't have a Royal family. Greece is a parliamentary republic. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

That’s why I didn’t say he would be 'King of the Hellenes'. He will however be heir to the abolished throne, head of the (Former) Royal Family, Royal House, a notable position. - dwc lr ( talk) 02:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Statistically speaking, as a Brit, of Brit"ish" stock (i.e. the usual mongrel anglo-saxon/celtic/other north western European and no doubt elsewhere too ancestry) , and not a Catholic, I'd be surprised if I wasn't the somethingth (at a guess 30-millionth or thereabouts) in line to the throne of the UK, which has the (dubious) merit of still existing. That doesn't make me notable, as I have ***-all chance of becoming King. How exactly does being 'heir' to an imaginary throne make this poor sproggit more notable than me? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Because you are not in line of succession to the British throne, and Prince Constantine will head a deposed Royal dynasty, a position of notability. Pretty much every head of a deposed Royal House has an article List of current pretenders. - dwc lr ( talk) 03:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

That's actually a serious problem, as many of these BLP-related articles are unsourced or badly sourced, and some are unstable or have in the past been used by hoaxsters who created a fake royal ancestry for themselves. Hans Adler 09:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not notable, per nominator. And regarding him "standing in direct line of succession to the throne of Greece", since the throne does not exist, he cannot stand in line for it. Creating halfbaked articles about minors supposedly in line to non-existent thrones based on nothing other than an imaginary 'hereditary position' clearly does come under 'not inherited', in the most obvious sense. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I agree with the nominator that his only claim to notability is his family. Therefore, his birth can be noted in other articles and has already been noted, for example, in Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece, his father. A standalone article for him at this point makes no sense. If he becomes notable in his own right later, than an article can be created for him.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete - I think Hans is being a bit melodramatic with his appeal to human decency, since Prince Constantine Alexios has no scandals, the article is unlikely to see much vandalism, we have no indication that this family would prefer not to be written about, etc. I would also argue to keep articles about similarly situated people who are parts of an extant monarchy. However, I am swayed by the argument that since Greece is no longer a monarchy (and seems unlikely at this juncture to return to monarchy) this family is now more in the situation of celebrities, former politicians, etc., such that notability is not inherited. (One of the rare cases where notability actually is inherited is in actual royal families. But this isn't actually a royal family anymore.)-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 23:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• You could argue he is a member of the Danish Royal Family, a reigning family. - dwc lr ( talk) 03:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

comment Yep appeals to common decency are very much melodramatic around here. John lilburne ( talk) 12:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep per dwc lr. And it can't just be argued that he is a member of the Danish Royal Family -- he is a member of that family, although not in line to its throne (but then, neither is any queen consort in line to the throne of the royal family to which she belongs). FactStraight ( talk) 03:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete, no independent coverage in reliable sources, no grounds for extra coverage here (besides a mention somewhere in an article about his family or parents). Let's have an article about him if and when he is old enough to do something notable himself, or perhaps if and when he actually takes that magical position as "head" of his house. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per AndyTheGrump. Rubywine ( talk) 11:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete Such entries are pretty stupid. A 12yo child whose only claim to notability lies in the imaginations of others, ought not to be in the book. John lilburne ( talk) 12:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete A minor who is not covered in reliable sources due to lack of notability does not become an adequate subject for a Wikipedia entry simply because he's a prince. Per nominator and everyone else. Delete, delete, delete. Griswaldo ( talk) 12:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete This doesn't meet the notability threshold at the present time, and may never actually meet it - I have my doubts as to whether him as a grown-up will make the cut, but at this age he'd have to outwit some bad guys or something. Dahn ( talk) 12:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete - per AndyTheGrump ukexpat ( talk) 17:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete We have notability criteria and he does not meet them. Discussion about whether he might one day merit an article is irrelevant. Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 18:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep Constantine is the third most important person in the Greek monarchist movement. It's POV to maintain that we can have dozens of articles about democratically elected Greek politicians, but not articles about the most important individuals in the monarchist movement. This is part of an ongoing anti-"royalty cruft" movement on Wikipedia. I did not vote on the deletion requests for Constantine's younger brothers, but this one is different. Noel S McFerran ( talk) 01:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Question: how significant is the "Greek monarchist movement"? Does it have popular support? Is it regularly discussed in the mainstream Greek media? Admittedly, a Google search in not the ideal way to find out, but its first find is to FaceBook: [4] 678 members... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

And further to this is he really "the third most important person in the Greek monarchist movement"? I'm surprised that they let 12-year-olds join. He might very well be the third most important person to the monarchists, but lacking evidence that they are notable, he isn't either. Leave the poor kid alone. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Did it occur to you that when editors who normally have better things to do start cleaning up royalty cruft, it might have something to do with the excess of unsourced or poorly sourced BLP articles full of non-noteworthy trivia? Wikipedia is not a playground for royalty dreamers and nobility nosers. It's an encyclopedia. For royalty precisely the same rule as for Pokémon holds: If it's notable, it goes in. If it isn't, it doesn't. Wikipedia is not a substitute for the reliable sources that don't do in-depth reports on the tiniest details of your personal hobby. It's just an accident that the closed season for royalty articles here at Wikipedia lasted a few years longer than that for Pokémon. Hans Adler 06:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete as birth alone isn't notable enough, when one isn't royalty. GoodDay ( talk) 03:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I must of missed the news that Denmark became a republic. - dwc lr ( talk) 03:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Is Prince Constantine in line for the throne of Denmark? Our article on the present Queen, Margrethe II of Denmark, doesn't seem to suggest so. Does it need correcting? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

No. Prince Michael of Kent is not in line to the British throne, but he is still a member of the Royal Family. - dwc lr ( talk) 03:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

(res to DWC), the Danish succession is limited to Christian X's descendants. GoodDay ( talk) 04:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

And has nothing to do with membership of the royal family, not only is he future head of the Royal Family of Greece he is also a Prince of Denmark and a member of the Danish Royal Family, just without succession rights. - dwc lr ( talk) 04:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

He's not in the Danish line of succession, therefore he's not a royal. He's not gonna be the head of the Royal Family of Greece, as there hasn't been a Royal Family of Greece since 1973. GoodDay ( talk) 04:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

What nonsense. So you are saying Prince Michael of Kent and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge are not royal because neither of them is in line to the British throne either. Greek Royal Family is still called as such even if its non reigning. - dwc lr ( talk) 13:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The British Royal Family exists, the Greek Royal Family does not. I'm not changing my stance on this AfD. GoodDay ( talk) 13:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

He is a Prince of Denmark and member of the Danish Royal Family, does that exist? - dwc lr ( talk) 13:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Even so, I'm not changing my stance. IMHO, only the 'pretenders' themselves, who were once monarchs, deserve an article. GoodDay ( talk) 14:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep - it is longstanding practice here - with lots of precedents - that royalty are in a sense always notable. Don't ask me to cite a specific policy, because there isn't one. But at past AfDs, we have always kept real royalty as well as pretenders who have some reasonable claim to get back their realms. Greece is perhaps the epitome of such a royal family. The subject is third in line. That's been good enough before. GoodDay's stance has not been the past consensus. If this is deleted, it will open a whole can of worms for further mischief. If the consensus has changed, we need more than a dozen participants to overturn hard-fought consensus. Only once before has HM Jimbo Wales inserted himself in a desire to change consensus, and that was a not pretty scene. I lost that fight, but at least I kept my good reputation. Bearian ( talk) 23:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  "We have always had consensus to keep political articles on non-notable 12-year-olds" is not a good keep rationale, and neither is your unrealistic optimism to get one of the European monarchies back. Hans Adler 00:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't too great either. Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 09:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep as per Bearian. Edward321 ( talk) 00:18, 11 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} 17:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Jafer Ahmad Summer Institute of Business (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Utterly non-notable school, per this search only Google hits are at Wikipedia. TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 19:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete The notability of this article is questionable. Expansion of the article may or may not help but in its current state it looks a poor article--  CrossTempleJay  talk 21:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails verifiability. For an institute of business, it is surprising that I am unable to find its web site. There is also no coverage in reliable sources. Not even passing mentions. There is no coverage in even unreliable sources. Not even a listing in the Yellow Pages. There is absolutely no evidence this even exists! -- Whpq ( talk) 14:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 18:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Whpq. -- Joaquin008 ^{( talk)} 19:35, 7 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 and SALT. postdlf ( talk) 20:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Gianna Distenca (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. Article previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianna Distenca and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianna Distenca (2). Giant Snowman 19:35, 5 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} 17:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Misspixels (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

I declined to speedy delete this as notability is somewhat claimed in the article text, but a search has not produced any reliable sources which can verify this content or indicate the notability of this person. The honor from Wired magazine is just a reader-submitted photo contest that was judged by who got the most votes on the website, not a competition between professional artists. This individual did not even win the contest but was in the top 15, and the coverage of it [5] does not contain a single word of description of this person. The Museum of Modern Art website does not appear to have any information on MissPixels despite the claims in this article. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Some coverage exists in community [6] newspapers. The MOMA claim, if read carefully, will reveal that it was an image released through social networking which is a lot different than the work being part of an exhibit or part of the MOMA collection. Note that the first community paper link makes this clear that it was part of a web showcase. -- Whpq ( talk) 15:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete - No evidence the subject satisfies the general notability guideline. I nominated this article to be speedied because the claims of notability didn't seem plausible: they appear massaged in order to confer the appearance of notability where there isn't any. The article is also spam. -- Rrburke ( talk) 19:57, 8 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} 17:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

193 Jarry (  | 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 bus route. No indication of where the coverage required by WP:GNG is given or available on searching Nuttah ( talk) 05:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't understand why its up for deletion???? Alexcaban ( talk) 04:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

The nominator said that the article you created doesn't show WP:NOTABILITY in terms of Wikipedia standards of notability required for keeping an article around. 65.94.45.160 ( talk) 05:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 20:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 20:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Question: is there a reason this particular article has been nominated out of the members of Category:Montreal bus routes? -- Kinu  ^t/ _c 21:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Reply It was what 'random article' bought up. If there are other articles in the category that lack any evidence as to how they meet WP:GNG then feel free to treat them as you see fit. Nuttah ( talk) 05:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Various searches brought up several potentially useful news hist, such as [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and [12]. Trouble is, all but the first are in French, and I can't tell if any of them give significant coverage to the route. Perhaps there's more potential for an article about the 10 minutes max network as a whole? Alzarian16 ( talk) 17:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply

None of them are significant mentions of 193. One of them said the criminal fled on the bus, another one said the bus driver worked the route, etc. 10 minute max network is just a bunch of bus routes where the number of buses were increased so that the interval between buses was reduced to a maximum of 10 minutes between them. 65.93.12.8 ( talk) 05:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• This is a random nomination by an infrequent editor - a drive-by tagging. If you are sincere please look at all STM related articles in their entirety. Be more constructive and contribute to something like the List of bus routes in Portsmouth area. Martin Morin ( talk) 17:08, 2 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete/Merge: Fails to meet GNG. An article similar to List of bus routes in Portsmouth area except for the STM seems reasonable, and all STM routes should be merged into it. DigitalC ( talk) 23:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• An omnibus list of bus routes would be perfectly acceptable content (still kind of ridiculous, selon moi, but prior consensus allows it.) However, as WP:OUTCOMES#Buses already points out, separate articles about individual bus routes pretty much fail WP:GNG. Delete/merge. Bearcat ( talk) 08:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Then WP:OUTCOMES#Buses is wrong, since many bus route articles have survived AfD and one even has GA status. "Rarely notable" is not the same as "always non-notable". Alzarian16 ( talk) 09:17, 12 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} 17:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Jigsaw Squirting (  | 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 product, cannot find evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Kinu  ^t/ _c 18:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete Nonnotable product. Edison ( talk) 18:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• maintain In the document's potential growth potential. -- 174.121.226.33 ( talk) 10:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Note: User is blocked. OSborn ^arf _contribs. 23:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete Probably shouldn't even be up for AfD but just CSDed under A7 for lack of indication of importance. It's barely in English, cites no sources and is totally non-notable: it's a dildo attached to a power drill jigsaw. — Tom Morris ( talk) 11:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —— Tom Morris ( talk) 11:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete per Tom Morris. —Tim Pierce ( talk) 12:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• maintain A great article about women's erogenous zones to. -- 46.243.9.247 ( talk) 22:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Note: User is blocked. OSborn ^arf _contribs. 23:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete fairly unclear article about a product for which it fails to establish any notability. OSborn ^arf _contribs. 23:45, 7 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} 17:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Ant farm episode list (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Episode list for TV series scheduled for 6 months time. No episode listed and only reference does not mention the series. Recreate when there are some episodes to list - this is just a placeholder. noq ( talk) 18:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete – No real content and misnamed (the list eventually should exist (unless the series is cancelled prematurely) at List of ANT Farm episodes, which is currently a redirect to ANT Farm). -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 19:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete Extremely poor quality, improperly laid out, misnamed article. The references in the article don't even support the article. The article might represent a valid redirect to List of ANT Farm episodes when the series actually airs, but there doesn't seem any point redirecting it while there are no episodes, as it should redirect now to A.N.T. Farm. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 14:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Only "source" does not mention the show. No content. Much like the creator's other article, Suite Life on Air, the content is either completely made up or taken from a forum posting somewhere where someone else made it up. - SummerPhD ( talk) 23:15, 7 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} 17:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Cynthia Sampson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Blatant autobiography. Is she notable? — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 18:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment I read through the article and saw that there were multiple issues with it. I am not sure about deleting it but one thing I am sure of is that the article has to be restructured and expanded. So I have left a comment on the article talk page.--  CrossTempleJay  talk 19:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No she isn't. Lots of hits with scholar and books, but it's not the same one - frankieMR ( talk) 23:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Nothing here to fulfill WP:BK or WP:AUTHOR. Qworty ( talk) 20:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete No real claim to notability, the award mentioned is just an undergraduate award at the University of Missouri. Qrsdogg ( talk) 01:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No indication of notability. Usual Caveats apply, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:59, 10 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} 17:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

List fails (in my opinion) WP:NOT#STATS. I see no indication of why this would warrant a stand-alone article, and at the least would think it would warrant deletion after merging into Chinese Canadian. Before people go pointing at List of U.S. cities with significant Chinese American populations (or other similar "List of X cities with large Y populations" articles) saying that if it exists this article should, I'm not completely convinced that they would warrant an article either, but I'm not going to be the one to nominate them for deletion. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G)} 17:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.

• So... which city has the most large Chinese?— RJH ( talk) 18:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Merging to Chinese Canadian is not at all a bad idea. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
• Merge if the statistics can be sourced, otherwise delete. What defines a "large" percentage of the population anyway? 1.8% doesn't seem large to me. DigitalC ( talk) 17:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete preferred, but merge acceptable, for perhaps top three. Quick check of a couple of the cities indicated that the info was available on the city wiki article, but with better context. I also agree that stand-alone articles on List of X Cities with large Y populations is not a good direction to go. Gierszep ( talk) 02:11, 12 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) 03:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Monolith Tour (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Per WP:CONCERT, non-notable tours of notable bands don't deserve articles. Also, this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 01:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 02:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:33, 28 April 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, Sadads ( talk) 22:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per WP:CONCERT and WP:GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk--  17:47, 6 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) 03:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Rock In A Hard Place Tour (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Per WP:CONCERT, non-notable tours of notable bands don't deserve articles. Also, this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 01:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:31, 28 April 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Going by my (admittedly limited) knowledge of Aerosmith history, there was nothing notable about this tour, and the article itself fails to give any explanation of notability. Indeed, the article is basically just a listing of stops on the tour, which is a great resource for a fan site, but inappropriate for Wikipedia.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 22:57, 5 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Josef Wagner (painter) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Very tricky sourcing problem, unable to find reliable secondary sources which provide coverage of this Czech artist, not to be confused with 19th century and earlier-20th century artists, such as the 1901-born sculptor [13] of the same name. There are some non-trivial claims that certainly go towards notability if they can be verified, but at present this is a long-term unreferenced BLP. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn (see below) -- joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — AllyD ( talk) 19:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment I've added an Interwiki to the Czech equivalent page, which in turn led to the National Library database where the Louis Mossot authored catalogue could perhaps go some way to confirming notability. But not finding much else. AllyD ( talk) 20:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep IOn the assumption that the article was written in good faith by a one-article editor who knew something about the artist, I googled:"josef wagner" Holešovice. (since the article states that he was known for work portraying this city with a unique name) the search [14] produced 357 very persuasive hits. Mostly in Czech, but, just scanning the first page, also an intervidw on a French radio program. Keep and hope for improvement. I.Casaubon ( talk) 17:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Withdraw as nom -- Nice job adding those sources, the French source in particular is substantial, bravo! -- joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:32, 10 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} 17:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Leslie J. Anderson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Appears to fail both WP:Academic and WP:Creative. While she may become notable in the future, it doesn't appear she is there yet. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 16:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Leslie J. Anderson deserves notable mention as a frequent and emerging voice in the independent comic publishing scene. She is an active (and influential) voice in the comics community, and belongs to writers groups featuring such influential artists as Matt Madden. She is a major contributor (editor/artist) to one of the foremost journals of experimental fiction (Quarter After Eight) and her poetry has appeared in a number of respectable publications. I have found her to be an influence, and I believe she merits a mention on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkapoet ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 6 May 2011— Jkapoet ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC). reply
• Delete. I searched Google news archive and the web for any sources that would indicate some notibility for her, but while some of the factual data can be verified this way I found nothing that would pass WP:GNG. As someone who only just received a masters degree WP:PROF is out of the question. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Nothing to satisfy WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, or WP:CREATIVE. Qworty ( talk) 20:59, 7 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 and redirect to Pakistan and state terrorism, because the article is an copyvio, for one. But also for a number of other reasons, including WP:CFORK. NW ( Talk) 20:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Inter-Services Intelligence role in terrorism (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

This is an inherent POV fork. We could rename it and improve the content, but then there would be substantial overlap with content elsewhere. There's not enough content of value to bother with a merge. It's an unlikely search term. Hence, a merge/redirect is unnecessary. Deletion is the best solution. Rob ( talk) 16:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Rob ( talk) 17:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Note: After doing the nomination, I see this is a part of a disruptive pattern of articles by one user, all with the same POV, all deleted. Perhaps a speedy is more appropriate. -- Rob ( talk) 17:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• I don't have an opinion on this AfD, but see also: Alleged terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, also created by User:Maheshkumaryadav. -- Fang Aili ^talk 18:11, 5 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 Plane (Magic: The Gathering). Feel free to change the target by later discussion if you want, but since this page already has a list of planes Mercadia should be merged there. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Mercadia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Fictional world in a trading card game. The article is entirely unsourced since 2009, and a Google search does not show reliable secondary sources discussing this fictional world, as would be required for a separate article by WP:V#Notability. If and when reliable sources for the subject are found, it may be mentioned at Plane (Magic: The Gathering) and a redirect may be created there. But currently the article should not be redirected because it is not described at the target article, and per WP:V, the current content should not be merged because it is unsourced. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyrexia, where another article about a fictional world from this game was deleted for the same reasons.  Sandstein  06:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Mercadian Masques and Plane (Magic: The Gathering). Unlike Phyrexia, this setting is not very important in the MTG fantasy universe. Cool Hand Luke 14:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Only to the extent the content is previously made verifiable, please. See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamigawa‎‎.  Sandstein  16:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Merge per my comments on the related AfDs started by the same nom. Hobit ( talk) 01:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Its clear what the outcome is but which of the suggested merge targets is correct? Suirely we can't merge to two articles and maintain attributation correctly. Please can we clarify and then this can close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:00, 5 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:17, 5 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Homar Rojas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Article doesn't really establish notability--just playing for a long time in minor league baseball is not inherently notable. The only reference/link is to another Wiki. Alex ( talk) 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep "Baseball figures are presumed notable if they ... Have appeared in at least one game in ... any other top-level, well-established national league (active or defunct) that itself has notable coverage outside the primary language of that league's country." I am of the opinion that the Mexican League meets this standard of baseball's notability guidelines. Kinston eagle ( talk) 01:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Technically, that's correct. Really though, I have a problem with that standard, saying that the Mexican League, which is considered on par with Triple-A, is the equivalent of MLB. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 13:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Actually, thinking about it some more, does it really have "notable coverage outside the primary language of that league's country"? I don't see much of anything about the Mexican League. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 13:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

That's language that was inserted into the guideline in question on the sly by the nominator, without discussion or consensus on the applicable talk page. As such, I have reverted it to the previously established consensus language, until such time as Alex can demonstrate that consensus has shifted to support his position. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 20:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep - per Mexican League meeting "top-level, well-established national league (active or defunct) that itself has notable coverage outside the primary language of that league's country." Even though the Mexican League is not "the equivalent of MLB," the same could be said of any other national league. Rlendog ( talk) 16:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• True. If we ever revisit baseball notability, I may try to propose limiting that automatic qualifier to the bigger ones, like MLB, NPB, CPBL, KBL, and others like that, while not qualifying every "top-level" league without a consideration of what "top-level" means. But for today, this is a keep. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I've decided to vote delete, my reasoning below. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Delete I think we need to establish by consensus at some point whether the Mexican League actually does meet the criteria spelled out above. Unlike other such leagues, the LMB actually has a working relationship with MLB and has the status of a Triple-A league. As such, I do not believe it meets the "top-level" portion of the requirements to allow for the conferring of assumed notability. - Dewelar ( talk) 15:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• That's a good point, the working relationship. It is "top-level" in Mexico, though. I want to see LMB decertified as "top-level" in our books. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Is there a higher level league in Mexico? Kinston eagle ( talk) 20:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply

No. A question for you: so what? Baseball is an international game. The best players go to MLB or the top Asian leagues. They don't stay in Mexico. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply

So what? So the notability guideline specifically assumes notability if the person has "appeared in at least one game in ... any other top-level, well-established national league." By your own admission, he has appeared in the Mexican League which is national in scope and is the top level found in the entire country. If you want the guideline changed to "any other top-level, well-established national league except in Mexico," bring that argument up at the guideline's talk page. This isn't the place for that. This AfD page is for discussion on whether this specific player is notable by the guideline's criteria. The way the guideline's are written at this moment, he is. Kinston eagle ( talk) 20:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply

That's why, you'll notice, my vote still says keep. Though I am tempted by Dewelar's argument that the Mexican League is not the top-level league due to its agreement with MLB. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 01:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply

As I said above, I'd like to see a consensus at WP:BASEBALL to decide the matter. I'm open to the idea of the Mexican League conferring notability (especially, as I've said in the past, for the years when players were blackballed for playing there), but I think some broader discussion is needed to establish whether it should or not. - Dewelar ( talk) 02:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm the guy who wrote the section on foreign leagues in the notability guideline, and I definitely considered the Mexican League to qualify at the time I wrote it. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 20:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Did everybody else involved at the time know that? - Dewelar ( talk) 23:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Pretty much, yeah. There was actually a good bit of support for saying that all long-tenured AAA players were inherently notable, although we ultimately ended up setting the bar a bit higher than that. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 15:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

To answer Kinston Eagle: the higher-level league in Mexico is, quite simply, MLB, because Mexico does not recognize the Mexican League as the highest-level league within its own country. MLB is officially a higher-level league than the Mexican League, as recognized by the LMB itself. Therefore they are not, de jure as well as de facto, the highest-level league in their country. - Dewelar ( talk) 23:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Arguing that there is no top-level league in Mexico is a pretty curious position to take, given that there are professional players playing ball there and games being held pretty much every day. If there's no league, then who's paying the players, and what are the fans who go to the games watching? - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 20:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Please also note that the Mexican League existed long before there was any sort of agreement with MLB. As such, your reasoning totally collapses when applied to any Mexican League players from the period before the agreement was signed. Also note that unlike the affiliated minor leagues, the Mexican League teams do not have formal affiliation agreements with individual MLB clubs. They locate and sign their own players, and if a MLB club is interested in acquiring one of those players, it must come to an agreement with that club on a case-by-case basis - just like any other top-level national league. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 20:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The first statement you made here is dependent on your definition of top-level. If a league recognizes another league as being of a higher level (which NPB, CPBL, etc., do not, but LMB does), and indeed considers itself a minor league, is it really "top-level"? I would argue that it is not. Note that the guideline does not say "highest level within the country" -- it says "top-level", which is more vague. (On a side note, "well-established" is also vague -- should the IBL qualify, as it's apparently been around for 60+ years?) As for the second statement, I have said previously that I would probably support pre-MLB agreement era Mexican League for notability (I implied it above as well, but it really doesn't pertain to Rojas). The rest of the second statement follows directly from the first statement. - Dewelar ( talk) 23:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The language about "top-level leagues" was only inserted to prevent players from short-season leagues (i.e. winter-league teams) or foreign minor leagues (like the scout teams for NPB clubs) from being considered inherently notable, as those clubs are roughly analogous to the US affiliated minors. If you find the wording to be unclear, the guideline should probably be updated to reflect the intended meaning. I can assure you that nobody intended to exclude the Mexican League based on the sort of convoluted logic that you're applying - the Mexican League is one of the three highest-caliber foreign leagues in existence, along with Japan and Cuba. It'd be totally crazy to include Italian or Taiwanese or Israeli teams that are of a much lower quality, relatively speaking, while crossing out the Mexican League. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 15:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

This makes a certain degree of sense, although there's a further piece to my thinking: I may be mistaken on this, but I am under the impression that MLB teams tend to sign the top Mexican players before they get to the LMB in the same way they do players from the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, which is also untrue of the NPB/CPBL/KBO. If that's not correct then that would change my position to a degree. Either way, I think it would probably be worthwhile to get an idea of where consensus is at on the matter right now -- for instance, at this point, consensus seems to be that while CPBL players are notable, the Italian and Israeli Leagues are not, a position with which I have not been given reason to disagree, but might not be where you or someone else stands. - Dewelar ( talk) 17:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

This is a good point. For every LMB veteran to jump to MLB (like an Alfredo Aceves), there are many more Mexican teenagers who sign without playing any LMB ball (like Manny Banuelos). I'm increasingly seeing LMB as no longer meeting criteria of a "top-level" league, regardless of country. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

If you check, you'll see that all Mexican nationals signing with a MLB club technically first sign with a LMB club, who then sells their contract (and rights) to the MLB club that wants them. Banuelos, for example, signed with the Sultanes de Monterrey before his rights were transferred to the Yankees (as per this NYT link). 75% of the player's MLB signing bonus goes to the player's Mexican club, and the remaining 25% goes to the player (see this article about the Pittsburgh Pirates' signing of Luis Heredia). That agreement is the whole reason behind the LMB's loose association with MLB in the first place. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 23:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

If that's the case, then it has no effect on my vote whatsoever. Essentially, it's a convoluted method for MLB to subsidize the LMB -- Banuelos was only a member of Los Sultanes on paper so that LMB could get its payoff. That might even lower its status in my opinion. - Dewelar ( talk) 00:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

That "convoluted method" is, however, the only formal contact between MLB clubs and LMB ones (except the sale or loan of an unwanted MLB player to a LMB club, which also happens from time to time). Which places it on an entirely different footing than all clubs in the US minors, who have a formal affiliation with one particular MLB club and are supplied with (or relieved of) players exclusively by that one MLB club. That subordinate status of US minor league clubs is what the guideline was written to emphasize, and it's simply not present for LMB clubs. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 01:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The same thing could be said of independent minor league clubs, which is exactly what the LMB clubs are. Allowing the LMB as currently structured to be notable and not the independent minors would be a biased viewpoint in that regard. - Dewelar ( talk) 02:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, it could, except that independent minor league clubs in the US are, by definition, not the top-level league in their country, due to the existence of MLB. As such, excluding them while including the LMB is hardly "biased". - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 04:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Actually, it is. If we are using the level and status of a league to determine its ability to impart notability, then to treat two leagues that have the same level and status differently because they are in different countries is pretty much the definition of bias. - Dewelar ( talk) 16:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

You don't seem to understand that the LMB's status as a AAA league is pretty much nominal. Alone among leagues with a level classification, its teams are not affiliated with a MLB franchise. They operate with complete independence. They sign, trade, and release players without input from any MLB franchise. Therefore, they do NOT have the same "status" as the IL or the PCL, and your argument about "bias" is nonsensical. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 18:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

It's also worth noting that these signings with LMB clubs are anything but paper transactions - the players in question spend at least several months with their LMB clubs, work out at team facilities with other members of the team, and if they're good enough, pitch in LMB games. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 01:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm also unclear as to why an understanding of the details of the system by which LMB clubs sell players to MLB organizations would lower your opinion of the LMB, since on a fundamental level it's not significantly different than the posting system by which NPB players are transferred from their NPB clubs to MLB ones. The only difference is the length of the time the player is under contract with the team from his native country prior to the transfer. Or do you also hold a similarly low opinion of NPB? - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 01:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I see nothing that suggests Banuelos ever played in the LMB. Heredia's case appears slightly different, in that according to the article Heredia seems to have pitched minimally at best so as not to overwork him and diminish his value to MLB teams. There are no stats for either player on the BBRef minor league database, and given the nebulous nature of the Heredia article there seems to be no real evidence that he pitched in the LMB either. Both players seem to have been signed by the LMB specifically with the end goal of selling them to MLB, which is not the case with any player in NPB of which I'm aware. - Dewelar ( talk) 02:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Banuelos didn't play in league games because at that time, he wasn't good enough - during his time in Mexico, his fastball topped out at 86 MPH. Hardly surprising, given that he was seventeen years old (i.e. with the physical development of a high school junior), and would have been playing against full-grown men. He did, however, spend "several months" working with his LMB team (as per this article). Heredia spent even more time with his LMB club (Veracruz). He signed with them on January 1, 2010, and remained with them until August 19 ( Link). Both were seen as prospects by their signing teams, to develop for a time and then either sell to another team at a profit or to use in their own organization once they had matured enough.- Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 04:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Yeah, that pretty much seems to support my point. If they were good enough to play in the U.S. minors, they would never actually play in LMB. - Dewelar ( talk) 16:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Fernando Valenzuela would certainly be surprised to hear that he wasn't good enough to play in the US minors...- Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 18:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

As would Teddy Higuera, Erubiel Durazo, Fernando Salas, Oscar Robles, Francisco Cordova, Ricardo Rincon, Rodrigo Lopez, Walter Silva, etc. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 18:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Your NPB analogy doesn't work because NPB clubs retain the rights of signed amateurs for a much longer time than LMB ones do, due to the nature of the league's operating agreement. Japanese players have much less leverage. There are, however, numerous NPB players who requested that their teams make them available to US clubs via the posting system as soon as the operating agreement permitted them to do so. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 04:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

That would be because the NPB is not a US minor league, which the Mexican League, in essence, is. - Dewelar ( talk) 16:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Can you elaborate? Your remark doesn't seem to make any sense, so I'm obviously not understanding the point you were trying to make. You seem to be drawing a distinction based on a relatively trivial difference between NPB and the LMB (i.e. the amount of time signed players remain under their club's control), while overlooking a much more important structural similarity (both leagues sell players to MLB, and in neither league is a team affiliated with a specific MLB franchise). - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 18:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

As far as I can tell, the nature of the working relationship between NPB and MLB and the working relationship of LMB and MLB are not equivalent. NPB is recognized as an independent major league, while LMB serves as an independent minor league. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

For the purposes of this discussion, I think that "independent" is a lot more important than "major". The former distinguishes it from typical minor leagues, while the latter is mitigated by its overwhelming prominence within Mexico. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 18:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

That's the best argument to keep I've heard here. You are right that in the IL and PCL, teams have direct affiliations, while in LMB, they don't. Of course, in the Northern League, Atlantic League of Professional Baseball, and others, they also don't have affiliations. Granted those are clearly minor leagues. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 13:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Rojas pitched in the Mexican League, which is a top-level national league, and thus meets the requirements of the applicable notability guideline. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 20:23, 4 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep – Going against my own gut instinct on this one. I don't really believe that the Mexican League should be considered as bestowing notability on all who play in it, but WP:NSPORTS does imply that that is the case. This likely isn't the only case where it's questionable if a league called "top-level" really is. However, a guideline means more than my personal opinion, and it appears to meet the present wording of said guideline. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 20:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I remember there being a similar case when I nominated Jake Blalock for deletion, because he flailed in the minor leagues here and then signed on to play in Italy. It's a league with no particular notability, although there is no "higher" league there. Anywho, remember that we're allowed to ignore all rules. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • No particular notability in the US, perhaps, but that's not necessarily the case within Italy itself. The Italian national team is one of the strongest in Europe. They won the European championships in 2010 (for the ninth time), and are typically qualifying participants in major international competitions like the World Baseball Classic, the Baseball World Cup, and the Olympics (when baseball was an Olympic sport). Most (though not all, admittedly) of the players on the Italian national team are taken from the rosters of the IBL. As such, I would argue that they are notable within the context of Italian athletics, and deserving of coverage in the interest of countering systemic bias within Wikipedia. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 00:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete I've changed my mind. LMB as it presently is is recognized as a minor league with a working agreement with MLB, and is therefore not the "top-level" of competition. Even though it's the "top-level" in Mexico, I'll use Wikipedia:Ignore all rules as my justification for going against the baseball notability guideline. I see no reason he should meet criteria for inclusion here. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

You may want to revise your !vote, as you are apparently operating under a mistaken impression as to how MLB signings of Mexican players work - see my comment regarding this upthread. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 23:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I have read over your discussion up thread with Dewelar on this, considered all that you said, and I will retain my vote as delete. Even if a player like Banuelos was technically property of LMB for a time, it sounds like a bookkeeping strategy that serves some purpose for LMB. All I see is Banuelos not playing in LMB because he was recognized as a hot enough prospect to be signed by an MLB team as a teenager. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

On top of that, I forgot that Alfredo Aceves signed as a free agent with the Blue Jays as an amateur free agent. He only went to LMB when he decided he didn't like playing in the DSL and the Jays released him so he could go home. He was no prized prospect at the time, like a Banuelos. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Banuelos wasn't a prized prospect at the time, either. The Yankees paid only $450k for a batch of players that included both Banuelos and Aceves. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 18:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I feel that makes my point about the current insignificance of LMB even stronger. Banuelos wasn't regarded as highly as teenagers that get multimillion dollar bonuses, and yet he still bypassed the "top-level" league within the legal boundaries that constitute Mexico. LMB serves as a hybrid of an independent minor league and a Triple-A league. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

At the same time, there are numerous MLB-caliber players who DO play in LMB before being sold to a MLB club. See my (not-particularly-exhaustive) list above. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 18:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

True. And much like our not-inherently notable AAA players in the IL and PCL, I don't think LMB players should be inherently notable unless they make the jump to MLB, or another top-level league. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 13:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep I tend to agree with HBWS here about the notability of los jugadores de LMB. Qrsdogg ( talk) 01:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete The full criteria being used states (emphasis added) "Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization, Chinese Professional Baseball League or any other top-level national league (active or defunct)." By being a AAA-level minor league, the Mexican League is not a major league as REQUIRED for the presumption of notability. Thus, the article should be deleted since notability does not appear to be otherwise established. RonSigPi ( talk) 04:05, 12 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! 07:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Women of Fear Factor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

not notible, weak references found Alan - talk 01:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete Inane cash-in DVD collecting dust in bargain bins at...ahem, certain stores and warehouses everywhere from a show forgotten from only five years ago. Why this ever needed an article is beyond me. Nate • ( chatter) 04:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep Sourcing exists via Daytona Beach News-Journal, DVDTown, MovieWeb, and DVD Movie Guide. The last three are redlinked, these publications are used in other WP articles as secondary sources. Google Books also shows this DVD was mentioned in title Girls gone skank: the sexualization of girls in American culture, by author Patrice Oppliger. This would be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. riffic ( talk) 12:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Can't see how any of these sources meets guidelines for serious, independent, in-depth coverage of the subject. That a few guides acknowledge that this DVD exists is no excuse to have an article on it. —  Chromancer  ^talk/ _cont 16:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

  The Daytona reference is from a review in a print newspaper. Having a review published in a newspaper such as this would establish notability. I don't have access to the full article because it's behind a paywall but it appears to be mostly about the DVD (I'd love to have a researcher with news archival access verify this before throwing a !vote here) riffic ( talk) 18:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

  another note: the sources that are redlinked are mostly reviews as well, which all offer serious, independent in-depth coverage of the subject. Their only fallbacks are they don't have their own articles on WP so their reliability is unknown (but I would not use that as a reason to discount their usefulness as a source to establish notability) riffic ( talk) 19:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

the 'redlinks' are't sources as they don't exist, which is why they are RED. Can you please stop trying to annoy people in afd discussions, it's going to get you nowhere but off wikipedia (and you have warnings about it from others already on your talk page). Alan - talk 22:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I am not trying to annoy people in afd discussions, I am legitimately trying to contribute to the project. Please, support your accusations with evidence of acting in bad faith, if that is your intention. otherwise, take this to another venue (as it is not relevant to THIS discussion) riffic ( talk) 02:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Who wants a pair of buffalo testicles and a fly milkshake, anyway? (Yes, I watched a couple of episodes when bored.) Also fails WP:N. CycloneGU ( talk) 18:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 19:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Weak-ish keep as per the sources discussed by Riffic. Just like to point out that the fact a website has an article on here does not make it a reliable source, and conversely the fact that it is 'redlinked' does not make it an unreliable source. The existance of a review in The Daytona Beach News-Journal is quite suggestive of notability, but I have my doubts as to their reliability of the other sources. From DVDTOWN.com 'about' page it appears to have editorial oversight, and as such is good enough for me. doomgaze (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. A review and a half, that's not a whole lot, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies ( talk) 04:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep per Riffic. However, Critical reception can not be based on a single review, that section has to be merged or rewritten. Cavarrone ( talk) 09:48, 1 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Negligible editorial coverage. It might be appropriate to mention this in the Fear Factor article, but I don't see any of the actual content here being suitable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:57, 7 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! 07:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. The consensus was to either keep or merge. While there is clear consensus to keep this in some form, there was no clear decision as to keeping or merging. Article is kept, and a new discussion should be opened to decide if the material should be merged into New Century Foundation SilkTork * ^{Tea time} 20:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The Color of Crime (New Century) (  | 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 selfpublished leaflet by semi-notable racialist organization. No coverage in reliable third party sources. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I am not adverse to merging to a relevant article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This has received media coverage including on BET. [17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrrrr5 ( talk • contribs) 12:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC) — Rrrrr5 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

*Delete no coverage from third part sourcing fail notability The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 14:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• • Prefer deletion but redirect seems a viable alternative The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 23:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Merge I am not seeing enough coverage under scrutiny for it to be deleted but not sure it has enough coverage for its own article. Thus Merging seems most appropriate The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 18:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:FORK. This is an unbalanced article directly describing a controversial primary source, not discussed in any secondary sources. The article concerns a 24 page White supremacist propaganda pamphlet with no ascribed authors. The leaflet is already amply described in the parent article New Century Foundation. Mathsci ( talk) 14:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• The suggestion below of Arxiloxos is also fine by me. Mathsci ( talk) 00:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to New Century Foundation and adjust the DAB page The Color of Crime accordingly. No need for separate article, but possibly a legitimate search term since this piece of propoganda is mentioned in press reports here and there. [18]-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 17:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Racist nonsense. No ref. Szzuk ( talk) 17:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Question. Do you mean that our article itself is racist nonsense or that it is about racist nonsense? The first would be a valid reason for deletion, but the second would not. Phil Bridger ( talk) 19:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to New Century Foundation. Article is NPOV and unreferenced as is.-- Dmol ( talk) 23:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete Non notable POV junk not covered in 3rd party sources. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 14:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep Google news archive search has 17 results for "The Color of Crime" AND "New Century". The first one is an article by Pat Buchanan [19] which mentions it and list the stats from it. Dream Focus 18:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

That is not an article it is an editorial/opinion piece. It does not establish notability by a very long longshot. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Psst WP:SIGCOV portion of WP:NOTE is the most relevant. WP:SIGCOV portion cover the issue here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 22:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete or merge redirect - Aside from the obvious POV issue, there isn't enough independent and significant coverage of this publication to justify its own page. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • BET, C-Span, and the Washington Times aren't enough? Rrrrr5 ( talk) 08:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

No amount of passing mentions is enough. Notability is established by coverage in sources that are about the topic, not sources that merely mention it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

And with the amount and depth of the coverage it does have, and the relatively little information available, it doesn't seem very logical to have this information separate from the article on the foundation.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

The fact that the Washington Times mentioned it is only supported by a blog post by Jared Taylor, who also complains that the media is conspiring to silence the pamphlet. That is a pretty good case for lack of notability and fringe status in itself. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{ rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 17:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 17:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Has to say Keep per Dream Focus reasonings.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 21:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Merge and delete. The content of the publication is irrelevant. Many semi-notable organizations have journals, newsletters, or various publications that receive GHits but are not notable enough to fork into a stand-alone article. Merge sourced information, then delete as "The Color of Crime (New Century)" [emphasis on "(New Century)"] is an unlikely search term. Location ( talk) 20:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• If a merge is done I'm pretty sure the original has to remain as at least a redirect for attribution reasons. Although given the amount of information and the amount of coverage it should get in the organization's article, it's entirely possible for the information to be included there without a merge from here.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 00:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep. There are references to it in a number of books. As well as articles, though most are behind pay sites -- still, what we can see (some of which is now in the article itself) is sufficient to reflect notability. Not pretty stuff, but we can't let idontlikeit be the reason for deletion when it has been noted in a number of books, including those put out by university presses (Cambridge, U of Missouri, as well as Macmillan), over the years.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment By the same logic every new piece of propaganda—described in the secondary sources as "racist" and "white supremacist"—from this publisher, such as [http://www.amren.com/features/hispanics/index.html Hispanics: A Statistical Portrait], should have its own wikipedia article. It's surely better to treat all of these in New Century Foundation. Mathsci ( talk) 03:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Of course, its tempting to censor the racists. But if it is sufficiently covered in RSs and meets our notability standards, it is not that it "should have" a wp article ... but the question is whether it should be deleted. If it meets our notability standards, even if it is Mein Kampf or the Protocols, we tend to cover it. Subsuming it in another article and redirecting the searches for this publication to that article would not seem to me to be more than cosmetic.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

This is not a question of censorship, just of where an appropriate place is to describe such propaganda, in its proper context. A passing mention in a footnote of a secondary source does not establish separate notability. Along with the "Hispanics" article mentioned above, the footnote gives it as an example of a genre of document, with no discussion of its content. Mathsci ( talk) 04:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Multiple references to it in RSs, including it being termed "a classic" of the genre of output by white nationalist academic racists, sways me. That it is propoganda (to us) is not the key point, IMHO, but actually diverts us from focusing on the fact that it is IMHO sufficiently RS-covered.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 06:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

None of the sources are about the Pamphlet, but pnly mentions it. Notability is only established by sources that are explicitly about the topic, not sources about other topics that give it passing mention. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

@Maunus -- I'm confused. As I just mentioned, inter alia, one of the sources even calls the specific pamphlet "a classic" of the genre. That certainly strikes me as "about the Pamphlet", and there are a number of sources in the article even -- let alone viewable in a google search -- that suggest that your assertion in the nomination that there is "no coverage" in RSs is over-exuberant, and perhaps doesn't quite cast an accurate picture.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 17:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

There was an SPLC Intelligence Report article explicitly about this, and the C-Span source explicitly discusses it. Rrrrr5 ( talk) 13:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Just out of curiosity, so I can read up on this topic some more, where are the sources that you found? Rrrrr5 ( talk) 13:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

You might look at some of the specific sources in the following google searches: articles, articles 2, books, books 2, google, google2, google scholar, scholar 2 As you can see, there are even more RS references in the searches than are (now) reflected in the article. In addition to the references, criticisms, use of it to support positions, and kudos variously found in

1. ^ "Jared Taylor/American Renaissance: Ideology". ADL. January 11, 2011. [20]
2. ^ "Race and Crime Report". C-SPAN Video Library. June 2, 1999. [21]
3. ^ "Glenn Spencer". Southern Poverty Law Center. July 29, 2000. [22]
4. ^ Carol Miller Swain (2002). The new white nationalism in America: its challenge to integration. Cambridge University Press. [23]
5. ^ "Coloring crime, SPLC, Intelligence Report, Issue Number: 99". Southern Poverty Law Center. Summer 2000. [24]
6. ^ Barbara Perry. Hate Crimes. Greenwood Publishing Group. [25]
7. ^ Paul Gottfried (2004). Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy. University of Missouri Press. [26]
8. ^ Walter Donald Kennedy (2003). Myths of American slavery. Pelican Publishing. [27]
9. ^ James P. Cantrell (2006). How Celtic culture invented Southern literature. Pelican Publishing. [28]
10. ^ Pat Buchanan (2007). State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America. Macmillan. [29]
11. ^ "The Color of Crime in the U.S.". Ocala Star-Banner. August 23, 2007. [30]-- Epeefleche ( talk) 17:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment Pelican publications are described by the SPLC here as Neo-confederate. In addition Gottfried has spoken at AmRen conferences (run by Jared Taylor). [31] Some of the authors are linked to the association Sons of Confederate Veterans. So it is unclear how many of the sources given above are reliable in this context. Apart from a passing mention in a foot note of Hate Crimes, the only WP:RS which describes the pamphlet objectively in any detail is Carol Swain's C.U.P. book. Mathsci ( talk) 11:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Merge and redirect per Mathsci. Holding Ray ( talk) 07:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC) — Holding Ray ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Keep after the enormous improvements to the article's sourcing by Epeefleche. Notability is sufficiently demonstrated in reliable third party sources, and documenting racist tracts is not the same as endorsing them. Quigley ( talk) 20:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Tx for the kind words. I do understand how the early !voters could have been misled by nom's blanket statement that "No coverage in reliable third party sources". Am glad to see that, once that is show not to be the case, the reaction is different.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep/merge The publication seems to have attracted some comment and it is our editing policy to keep the good work which has gone into documenting this. Colonel Warden ( talk) 16:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• merge or delete - per Mathsci, and Arxiloxos. The RS's used are very slim for a stand alone article, but enough that a straight up delete is probably not the right course. I do think a redirect to whereever it goes is good idea. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 17:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep The original article as nominated was short and unsourced... suitable for redirection or merge. However, over the following week, and through the work of several editors, including the nominator himself, the article has been much expanded and sourced, and now shows itself to be a suitably encyclopic article about a notale topic. As was once pointed out to me, sunlight is the best disinfectant. If someone wants to look up the book and comes to Wikipedia, at least it can be seen who the detractors consist of, and their thinking. We offer balance. And as we are here to aid readers in an understanding of topics, this one now serves the prohect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:38, 4 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep, despite that I think it's nutbars. By their logic, crime in NYC should have gone up as the number of minorities increased, while in fact it has gone down drastically in the past 15 years. It's a fringe publication, all right, that is "not even wrong" -- its statements and claims are divorced from science, and are not reality-based. Whether it's a notable fringe theory or publication is colorable. I'm not in favor of publicizing racists and crazees, but there are some citations. I'm not sure Pat Buchanan and the Washington Times could be considered reliable, but Southern Poverty Law Center is the go-to group on Hate crime laws in the United States. It also depends on an interpretation of WP:SIGCOV, and whether you think it's a good or bad idea to publicize such nonsense. So I'm leaning towards a keep, but I won't be heartbroken if it goes away or is merged. Bearian ( talk) 15:18, 11 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} 17:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Benfleet Running Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Long-tagged as an advert, this is a puff piece about non-notable small town sports club. Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} ( Talk) 15:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete No in depth coverage in reliable sources, other than routine coverage in local newspaper, the Evening Echo (Essex), which is insufficient for notability. Cullen328 ( talk) 23:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete As per Simple Bob. Rcsprinter ^{Gimme a message} 17:01, 10 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. This was a difficult close for a number of reasons, not least the number of articles listed for deletion. At the heart of the deletion discussion was the principle of having articles that are lists of consorts. Our notability guideline is that ”A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.” Part of the problem in determining that, is that most of the lists were totally unsourced, and those that were sourced, were sourced to information about the title-holders, not their spouses. However, as a general principle, there is an academic and popular interest in consorts, so it is not inconceivable that there will be some source somewhere which refers to the "Duchesses of Longueville" or "Duchesses of Bourbon" for example. That the lists are mainly unsourced is a cause for concern, and some very good points have been raised in the AfD discussion about the reliability and accuracy of the information. However, that is generally seen as a reason for clean up, rather than deletion. Good suggestions were made for merging the consorts with their partners – and it was interesting to note that for those title-holder articles I looked at, the spouses were not listed, though they usefully could be. Pertinent to this AfD is that ” Wikipedia articles are not … Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as … persons – which adds “Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.” Much of the lists do indeed contain people who have articles on Wikipedia, and do so precisely because they are consorts of Dukes or Counts. While much of the keep comments were unhelpfully terse, providing the closer with nothing useful, or were simply mistaken; and a few of the delete comments did go into well argued detail; on the whole, the weight of the keeps combined with lack of policy/guideline advice which actually disallows this sort of material (the advice pointed more to keeping), leans toward a keep, though with a strong recommendation to source the material, and to consider merging with the title-holder articles or lists, leaving a redirect in place. SilkTork * ^{Tea time} 21:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC) reply

List of consorts of Elbeuf (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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