Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 3

< 2 August	4 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-airlines

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

Fail to be convinced that this is 1. Notable. 2. Accurate. 3. Not WP:OR. Also note the mini project discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This article is somewhat a hoax, also it is filled with OR. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only reference from a reliable source I could find for the term "micro-airline" is [1], which uses the term to describe something else. I'm not convinced that the term is not a neologism. The concept described in the article matches the second business model described in the article regional airline, and the definition is applied to the term "commuter airline". Also note that this is a contested PROD. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a common term probably made up. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be at best a Neologism - virtually nothing on Micro-airlines or Micro airline on Google, and I could find nothing on Google scholar or Google News.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing on Yahoo! searches either. SwisterTwister talk 02:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably a hoax, at best something that someone has made up and is trying to get to stick. I have been involved with aviation my entire life (my father was a pilot) and have worked for two companies that would fit the definition given in the article, and I have never heard the term until this article popped up. There is another RS that uses the term here, but the usage there is to describe something else completely different; subscription-based flights in small executive-configured aircraft between major cities - kind of a Netjets shuttle I suppose. YSSYguy (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references. "The sector is not represented by any industry body, such as IATA or regional airline associations, and therefore exists below proper oversight and legislation." This shows that it has no representation in third parties. How is this going to be proven to exist?Curb Chain (talk) 05:40, 10 August 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. Sandstein 18:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trávníček

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

Just one wikilink so this page is not needed. Xajaso (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several articles about people with this surname on the German and Czech Wikipedias. We now have one. As the English Wikipedia develops, red links will turn blue. No compelling reason to delete has been advanced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This isnt an Article, it is a Disambiguation page created ahead of its time. We need multiple things to Disambiguate before a Dab page needs to be made. If the Dab page creator feels like Tranwiki-ing a few of the other pages into english then it could stay, but this page currently seems pointless to me. (ps. this should have gone to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page contains useful information for this encyclopedia, and has potential for expansion. It is imperfect and unfinished, but it is better than no information. See for example cs:Trávníček. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your example is an trans-wiki variation of Other Stuff Exists. Should all the wiki's contain the contents of all other wiki's simply because 'Other wiki's have it' ? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Czech and I know well that the surname has several notable bearers. I backed up my claims with reliable sources, please check the article again. I still believe the information is useful for this project. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but use inter-wiki links to turn the red links blue now. If we're going to get decent coverage of non-English subjects, we need to cut the help out those generating it. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:56, 10 August 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. Consensus leans towards notability - in particular but no solely I point out that the win at the Open Canada Cup, on which the reliable sources point as notable that an amateur team beat professional teams to win it - a claim made in the article and the discussion. As a note, the operative notability here is WP:GNG, a guideline that reflects project-wide consensus, not WP:FOOTYN, a Wikiproject essay meant to provide a roadmap to project participants but not subject to project-wide consensus. --Cerejota (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa St. Anthony Italia

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

Non-notable amateur football club, does not pass WP:Footy TonyStarks (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability is claimed - winning the Open Canada Cup and The Challenge Trophy - and easily verifiable, per the Canadian Soccer Association. Giant Snowman 14:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with the notability of a Canadian team. --Coppercanuck (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How does winning the Open Canada Cup and the Challenge Trophy confer notability exactly? Neither competition is considered as the National Cup in Canada and hence the club fails WP:FootyN, does it not? @CopperCannuck, as the creator of the article, simple saying that the club is notable is not enough please provide a reason.TonyStarks (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what Coppercanuck is trying to say is not "it's notable", but rather "per GiantSnowman". Jenks24 (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes agreed with GiantSnowman on the WP:FootyN. The Challenge Trophy is a National Cup in Canada. Granted there is another cup Canadian Championship, The Challenge Trophy is still competed for at a high level. The Open Canada Cup was an attempt to bridge the gap between the amateur and professional leagues in Canada. "All teams that have played in the national cup are assumed to meet WP:N criteria." Ottawa St. Anthony not only played in a National cup they won it. Team winning a notable competition is notable? Correct? --Coppercanuck (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a National Cup for amateur clubs. Does that really confer notability? I mean any club registered with the Canadian Soccer Association can enter, so really any team that participates in it can have it's own article. Maybe I'm misunderstanding WP:FOOTYN, but I really don't see how playing or winning a national amateur cup confers notability.TonyStarks (talk) 04:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - All of the finalists in the FA Vase competition (English national cup for amateur clubs) have articles. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or more appropriately in this case WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTSEVENTHOUGHITPROBABLYSHOULDN'T. I agree with TonyStarks here; I don't see how winning an amateur tournament infers notability and the lack of independent coverage means that I am leaning towards delete. Big Dom 19:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with Big Dom that winning an amateur tournament does not confer notability. Delusion23 (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FOOTYN. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Couple of misapprehensions here. First, WP:FOOTYN is a reasonable guide for estimating likely notability, but it's an essay that was never accepted outside WP:WikiProject Football, not a Wikipedia notability guideline. Second and perhaps more important, the Open Canada Cup wasn't an amateur tournament. It was a national competition open to both amateur and professional clubs: the team beaten by Ottawa St. Anthony to win the competition, Toronto Lynx, was then playing in USL-1, a fully-professional league as listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. I'd suggest a club that beats a fully-professional team in the final of a national open cup competition has to be considered notable. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:17, 3 August 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! 21:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This football club is amateur and only participated in amateur tournaments. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're just choosing to ignore Struway2's logic that shows this hasn't "only" participated in amateur tournaments? Interesting. Giant Snowman 14:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GiantSnowman: I think the real issue here is how we define The Challenge Trophy. Is it really THE National Cup of Canada? In the history section of its article, it says "The tournament acted as a men's national championship at the highest level in Canadian soccer in its early years, however, professional and semi-professional tournaments have taken on more importance in recent decades, including the Nutrilite Canadian Championship." What era does the "early years" refer to considering that the competition has been around since 1912? When did it stop being considered the national championship at the highest level? I think the answer to those questions will be a better indicator of how notable the club in question (and others along the way) really are.TonyStarks (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current team(s) may not be particularly notable, but winning Open Canada Cup against fully-professional team is certainly notable. Not sure why User:Eduemoni is making clearly false statements that they only participated in amateur tournaments. Nfitz (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The club has won a national championship; albeit amateur, but we have articles about other national "amateur" competition winners, eg teams who compete for the Canadian Bowl, Memorial Cup and Allan Cup. The reason I'm not gung-ho about my keep opinion is that amateur soccer doesn't have the profile of other sports in Canada. PK T(alk) 14:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Challenge Trophy is equal to Allan Cup. Soccer is gaining a bigger profile in Canada. Looking back at some newspapers from the 1930's, 40's and even 50's; the results of the Challenge Trophy were published in papers outside of the local teams. The profile was there, it took a low spot and now is returning. Coppercanuck (talk) 16:01, 11 August 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Auger

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

Claims to notability unworthy of inclusion. Page likely created by person themselves or someone with conflict of interest. Wreaks of self-promotion. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Personal article filled with irrelevant and uncyclopedic informations, wikipedia is not myspace. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage by reliable sources to demonstrate notability. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 01:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable sources on both Google and Yahoo that could've supported the article. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 10 August 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. Courcelles 00:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

53rd and 6th

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

Extended advertisement for a food vending stand (?) in Midtown Manhattan. Article is almost entirely sourced to a website for the stand. Nominated for deletion years ago when the article's name was "Chicken and Rice" (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken and Rice); result was "delete" but article was re-created under current name. Insufficient multiple nontrivial coverage in sources unconnected to subject matter. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Same food, with different nomenclature, the article use blogs to source some statements, but even in these blogs such information is not provided. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is an article about a sidewalk food cart? That is so silly! And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: poorly sourced trivia in local sources. No indication of "significant coverage". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources provided do not establish notability for inclusion on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is very issue with wikipedia. None of the delete nomination suggest that any research was done. The notability of the cart extends far beyond New York City, also what is notable locally in NYC pulls vastly more weight than something notable in a small town. If something is notable it deserves an article regardless of what it is, and yes a food cart can in fact be notable. Valoem ^talk 20:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see the significant coverage required - the articles mention the cart in a single sentence each. There is exaggeration ("There is a student club at New York University dedicated to the food cart" is patently false from the source cited, which states the club is dedicated to the dish, not the cart - the cart gets a single-sentence mention - "When you're in line at any of these carts, especially the world-renowned 53rd and Sixth Avenue cart, you notice a melting pot of people from all sorts of backgrounds."). I fail to see that this business meets the criteria for inclusion PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:26, 10 August 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 Procedural close. Closing this discussion as all the relevant articles have been deleted as CSD G7 Big Dom 09:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All-time English Football League 1st Division Table

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

PROD contested by article creator. Collecting data and compiling it into a new format violates WP:OR, WP:NOTSTATS, and to a lesser extent WP:LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 21:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails on all counts mentioned, and they're not even meaningful stats. Article(s) do not in any way explain why these stats are notable either. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - if you follow that particular line of logic, are you therefore going to call for the deletion of all 'All-Time' pages? Could you also please advise what sort of statistic would be classed as 'meaningful'? And calling the Conference, Southern League, Northern Premier League and Isthmian League 'random' is somewhat disengenuous, escpeially when two of the competitions have existed for over 100 years and one of them (the Southern) effectively created an entire Division of the Football League Geordiewomble 21:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC).

If community consensus holds that these kinds of pages are non-notable (which, going from a recent discussion at WT:FOOTY), then yes, it is logical to delete them all. Giant Snowman 21:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Firstly, I'd say yes, 'all-time' pages (erroneously named) should be deleted. Meaningful statistics in football terms are season tables, match results, player appearances, things like that. Nobody is calling into doubt the validity or notability of these leagues. What is meaningless is the creation of tables with no level playing field, i.e. these clubs have not participated with the same frequency, or against the same opponents, so the stats are woefully skewed. What information can be drawn from these tables? Why are they notable? Which reliable sources use them? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a shame - are you going to push for ALL 'All-Time' tables to be likewise deleted? Just so I know to stop work on my League of Ireland pages.... Geordiewomble 21:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geordiewomble (talk • contribs)

Yes, I would advise you to cease work on these kinds of articles until their worth has been judged here, either way. Giant Snowman 21:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with All-time English Conference League Table, All-time English Conference National Division Table, All-time English Conference North/South Division Table, All-time Isthmian League 3rd Division Table, All-time Isthmian League Table, All-time Northern Premier League Premier Division Table, All-time Northern Premier League 1st Division Table, All-time Southern League Table, All-time Southern League Premier Division Table, All-time Southern League 1st Division Table, All-time Isthmian League Table, All-time Isthmian League 1st Division Table, All-time Isthmian League 2nd Division Table as original research. Number 57 21:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus All-time English Football League 2nd Division Table, All-time English Football League 3rd Division Table, All-time English Football League 4th Division Table. These must have slipped under the radar when originally created as they don't seem to have many incoming links. Number 57 21:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at Category:All-time football league tables, I'd say 95% of the constituent articles need to be looked at. Giant Snowman 21:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia discourages the use of a all time table based on content coined from WP, it is OR, such type of info needs external source. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the will, so be it - give me 10 minutes, they'll be gone. Just to confirm, you'd be looking to delete ALL 'all-time' lists? Would that then extend to non-Football, indeed non-Sport lists? I'm asking this as a positive enquiry, not a criticism Geordiewomble 08:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geordiewomble (talk • contribs)

Delete This is definitely OR and has no place here. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will this be deleted too ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_FA_Premier_League_table — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.11.232 (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is deleted then all related articles should go. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All my pages have been cleared! Now, to go back to my first love - buses; are there any other Counties I can create Route Lists for? Geordiewomble 21:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geordiewomble (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

21st century frontier hydrogen r&d program

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

Short stub with unclear notability. Ephemeral project. No independent sources about this project. During last three years there was no attempt to improve this stub. Beagel (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per National RD&D Organisation for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Programme. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 5 August 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. Courcelles 00:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louis L. Carter

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

An article on the same person was deleted in 2006 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Carter), the subject has published further works since then but the secondary coverage is still lacking. The sources consist of an interview from a blog, websites of organisations he is affiliated with, and his own books; several sources cited (5, 7-10, 17-19) have no mention of the subject. I haven't been able to find further coverage which would establish meeting WP:BIO or bring the sourcing up to standard. January (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If there is no third party sites to provide reliability and reaffirm his notability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:10, 4 August 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 Dove_Campaign_for_Real_Beauty . Black Kite (t) (c) 00:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dove Beauties

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

Non-notable and unreferenced article about an advertising campaign. The article's central claim that 'Dove Beauties is a colloquial phrase' seems to be unfounded. I suggest deletion, but at the very least it should be merged with Dove_Campaign_for_Real_Beauty - JRheic (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - The article is basically a replication of Dove Campaign, but focusing on the UK, also the name is way too informal to be maintained here, if the article is kept I suggest a name change. --Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dove Campaign for Real Beauty. This article fails WP:RS (no sources at all). Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Content fork Curb Chain (talk) 06:05, 10 August 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.

Nitin Gupta

The result was delete. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Jones (minor league pitcher)

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

Retired minor league baseball player who fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASE/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He fails the sports guideline criteria, which is the basic factor for the maintainability within wikipedia, I won't even discuss about GNG. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:59, 4 August 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, nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). As much as I thought before that two obscure things didn't need disambiguation, I have been convinced. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 16:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ECCM

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

Readers are unlikely to confuse a European non-profit organization with measures against countermeasures in electricity. Interchangable (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the article European Culture Collections' Organisation the abbreviation for the non-profit is ECCO not ECCM; with that in mind this article already meets G6 criteria under WP:SPEEDY deletion. // Gbern3 (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ECCM appears to be an acronym of the name in a different european language or a predecessor organisation, see for example http://www.science24.org/show/Belgian_Co-ordinated_Collections_of_Micro-organisms Stuartyeates (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how exactly is this relevant? That still doesn't address that this page disambiguates something that hardly needs disambiguation. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 17:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The letter O and M are not the same. The grand senator (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, useful to disambiguate between Electronic counter-countermeasures and East Caribbean Common Market (which was added after the nomination on 21 July).

No, it is not. We have simply moved from one organization to another. If you were looking for the Caribbean market, or the electric thing, you would know which to use. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 20:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein 06:31, 3 August 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! 20:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be a useful disambiguation page for various things that are commonly known as ECCM. - JRheic (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page for two, utterly different, obscure things. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 23:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what a disambiguation page is for. To differentiate between different things that are known by the same name. - JRheic (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:DAB, "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles". There are now (at least) two meanings of ECCM in need of disambiguation. --CliffC (talk) 23:47, 3 August 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. Courcelles 00:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eating design

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

"Eating design" appears to be one person's (Marije Vogelzang, to be precise) term for her work, intended to distinguish her work from mere "cooking" or "food styling". All references in the article are to Vogelzang's own publications or to publications about her. The term does not appear to have gained any wider usage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable term. No third party reliable sources. Fails WP:N.The Undead Never Die (talk) 20:54, 3 August 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. Courcelles 00:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of terms for fuel cell power systems

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

Stub with unsure notability. Beagel (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even a glossary. Epic fail of WP:PUTEFFORT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't believe it but it is indeed missing the glossary since creation years ago --DeVerm (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the article is supposed to be about a book. Either way, the book doesn't seem to be notable.--Bte99 (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge - selectively merge any useful information into the Fuel cell article as suggested in another AfD. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really sure what the article is about. It certainly isn't what it says it is. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 01:46, 10 August 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 Rock Springs massacre. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the Rock Springs massacre

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

Per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory and WP:MEMORIAL. Having a separate list for this adds nothing to the topic. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No need for a list of non-notable victims. Other articles beginning with "List of victims," where such victims are all or mostly non-notable, redirect to the articles on the events in question, but this is unlikely to be a search term. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on grounds that Wikipedia is not a memorial site. My sympathies to the relatives of those involved. Carrite (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I dont care if it is deleted or merged or kept, but I cant see the harm in it being kept either.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NOHARM. Also, your recommendation is contradictory, saying both "keep" and "I dont care if it is deleted or merged or kept". RichardOSmith (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no need to be deleted.Calvin Marquess (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Rock Springs massacre This is not a expandable list, so a formatted embedded list into the main article would alleviate the formatting disaesthetics.Curb Chain (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bingo! This is 100% right on the money. Carrite (talk) 23:30, 10 August 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 Fuel cell#Types of fuel cell. Sandstein 18:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel cell technologies

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

Stub with unclear notability. This page should probably be a redirect to Fuel cell. Beagel (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to Fuel_cell#Types_of_fuel_cell - good grief, this has been around since 2008??? obviously overlooked, pretty much orphaned, and then superseded. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 14:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge - selectively merge any useful information into the Fuel cell article as suggested. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 6 August 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 Flag of Cambodia. Any merging can occur from the history. Sandstein 18:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Standard of the King of Cambodia

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

There is not enough text about this flag, or any sources, to support a standalone article. This information is already present in the parent article Flag of Cambodia. Merge any information that is present and delete. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. My Wikipedia dream has always been to use the flag symbolism cleanup tag on something. Now that dream has come true. Merge into Flag of Cambodia and perhaps mention in National symbols of Cambodia. Several Times (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I would have merged also as I agree with User:Several Times, but the information and image already exists on Flag of Cambodia. 3 sentences and no Cites does not an Article make, and as many other "Royal Standard of" Articles exist, I can only go so far as a Redirect. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually those are lists or have a lot of images, history, sources, etc. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tend to think that this is a possible search term so it should get people somewhere, we have others so it is in the realm of possibility. Besides Redirects are cheap. If that's what you mean. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah; that is what I had originally. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Royal Arms of Cambodia. --Lambiam 17:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to relevant article. Unable to find references to reliable sources. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 01:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Flag of Cambodia? --Dÿrlegur ^talk 14:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC+10)

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

W8- Water

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

No evidence of notability per WP:CORP. Kelly ^hi! 18:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as advertising. There's nothing here to establish notability. Several Times (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I am not sure this even exists or existed. Glennfcowan (talk) 14:29, 4 August 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 per consensus and per CSD G4. More or less the same article and the original actually had sources. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ProjeLead

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

Run-of-the-mill software with no evidence of notability. References provided are not reliable sources, but rather appear to be mere directory listings (i.e. "I have this new software for you to buy/download") or a blog (which, from the content of the text, appears to have been a solicited review). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that workawesome and unixmen are not reliable?!!! can you please prove that before you delete this article? I can probably list at least 10 (project management) softwares on wikipedia that are true Run-of-mill with commercial language and that were listed for delete and are still hanging there. I just wonder how they do that? I am gonna quit arguing as I feel like your decision is made anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupidon92 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources in this context. noq (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recreation with nothing significantly different from the original deleted article. Should have been left as a G4 speedy for an admin to confirm this. noq (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even come close to passing WP:GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unremarkable software that lacks WP:RS to support WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 70.21.24.28 (talk · contribs) _{17:33, 8 August 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. Courcelles 00:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert V. Adams

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

WP:N -- Unable to find reliable, secondary sources providing in-depth coverage of this author to evidence his notability under WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. The commonality of the three names the author claims he uses does complicate searching of course, additional sources welcomed, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 22:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party sourcesCurb Chain (talk) 08:59, 10 August 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. Courcelles 00:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Morning Forest

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

Lacks external sourcing. The typical WP:BEFORE checks through numerous search engines turned up no usable sources for the article, which means it fails our policy on verifiability, and possibly the general notability guideline. Prior sourcing for the article was provided through links to recorded show audio through sites such as MegaUpload, which aside from self-publishing concerns, ~~were copyright violations~~ and could not be used. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the content on this page is true and verifiable through the uploaded radio show bits. It hasn't come up in search engines because it is a small radio station that cannot afford proper advertising for its shows. This hopefully would be the shows first link to information about it. There is no copyright violation because it is all open source, creative commons licensed, self-generated material. MothBall77 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
How is this show supposed to get any recognition if it isn't on the Internet's most popular engine for getting information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MothBall77 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the CC licensing, so I will strike that from my rationale. However, linking to a file download site is still inappropriate. In regards to your second point, Wikipedia is not to be used as a promotional end. Furthermore, Wikipedia has policies on notability and verifiability, which I linked to above, which require that article subjects are reported on elsewhere before meriting an article here. In short, it gains recognition, then ends up on Wikipedia, not the other way around. elektrik SHOOS 17:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well since this is a semi-small college, it would be impossible to pull old articles about the show from their archive. They do not keep one! I know that is frustrating. But can't the uploaded files be used as a replacement for a reported/written article? In a way, the audio files are a testimonial that someone out there cared enough to record the show and upload them. How isn't that gained recognition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MothBall77 (talk • contribs) 17:49, August 3, 2011
Unfortunately, not on its own. That standard on Wikipedia is defined by the general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage in reliable, unaffiliated sources. Using episodes of the show as a reference may show that information in the article is true, but it doesn't necessarily confer notability. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the sources that taped the show are unaffiliated to the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MothBall77 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As author of this site, I have contacted the show's creators and personalities and they said that they would like an article. The co-author of this article knew of some students--not with the show--that had been recoding the show and uploading it to the Internet. This has to be reliable and unaffiliated sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MothBall77 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word of a few random students who decided to tape the show is unfortunately not good enough. In this case (and all cases), "independent and reliable" would mean sources such as magazine or newspaper articles, unaffiliated radio shows covering the topic, outside web pages writing about it (excluding personal blogs and the like)—those kind of sources. See our guideline on identifying reliable sources. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. University clubs are generally assumed not to be notable, per the lack of coverage outside their home university, and this is no exception. The fact that the article's creator has admitted a promotional goal in creating the article only strengthens the argument for deletion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Beagel (talk) 07:31, 4 August 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 close; wrong forum. MfD already opened: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Peter MacDonald (computer programmer). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Peter MacDonald (computer programmer)

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

This page has not been touched in four months, it is still way too short and not got enough sources. It should now be considered to be erased. Also this biggest contributions cam from user: Pcmacdon I am not 100% certain but from the username could this person be associated with the subject of the article. Either way its been 4 months and still does not meat a decent standard Ruth-2013 (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is the first nomination of an article from the Article Incubator that I recall seeing. Is this the correct venue for this? I don't think it is the purpose of AfD to comment on the POTENTIAL encyclopedia-worthiness of POSSIBLE FUTURE ARTICLES, only to make rulings on articles in main space. Moreover, four months does not seem an inordinate amount of time for a work in progress to sit outside of main article space for lack of work and sources and this seems to be a hasty nomination, at a minimum. Carrite (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request - Can we get a quick administrator ruling on this matter? Carrite (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reject nomination as not in the article space. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:41, 3 August 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 Michael Landy. Courcelles 00:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Art Bin

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

Not notable. Herp Derp (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge to Michael Landy. Landy's a British artist. He made a transparent waste bin in which he invited people to discard unwanted works of art, the Art Bin. He was making a statement. Soon as I figure out what it was.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. No strong feelings on this I wrote the article; would be happy enough with a merge to Landy's article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh-urge. Er, Merge. Notable but makes more sense in context of the artist's other work. Several Times (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before Landy's one-off work, there was the Art Bin, an early cultural website recalled with affection from 1995; book discussion in "Art in Sweden: leaving the empty cube : contemporary Swedish art" (1998), "Magazines for libraries" (1998), "The European history highway: a guide to Internet resources" (2002) etc; possibly enough notability for a repurposed article at some point. AllyD (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've blended info and the reference from this article into the Michael Landy article (which is rather under-referenced anyway). That - and any more info that anyone might choose to add - seems sufficient for an artwork best just covered in the context of an article discussing this artist and his work. AllyD (talk) 21:29, 3 August 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. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The next Shane Warne

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

Article is not encyclopedic, rather speculation on who the "next great player" will be for Australia's cricket team. Article may be better suited to be a section on the Shane Warne page, rather than it's own page. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a common term that's been applied to each spinner since Warne's retirement (IE general coverage of notability). Exactly how long and hard did you look for sources to improve it in the 20 minutes of tagging from the initial creation? Lugnuts (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've heard the term "The Next Michael Jordan", "The Next Wayne Gretzky" etc. tossed around for years about players, however it doesn't warrent it's OWN article. I've got no problem however with this being moved to a section on the Shane Warne article itself. It's good info actually, but to warrant its own article I think isn't needed. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Verging into WP:CRYSTAL territory. I agree that the discussion itself may be sufficiently notable but certainly not on its own, where it serves only as a collection of critical speculation. A merge per the above comment could be another choice, but several of the sources are just from blogs of questionable reliability. Several Times (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about CRYSTAL as the term has been banded about historically (IE x player is billed as "the next Shane Warne"). There's no claim anywhere that they WILL be as good as Warne, but that the term has enough general coverage due to the crisis in Australian cricket. Strewth! Lugnuts (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I wouldn't begin to claim that use of the phrase itself violates WP:CRYSTAL, but rather that having an article consisting only of summarized speculation violates it. Even if the article doesn't claim anything about a Shane Warne replacement's abilities, the claim that one of these individuals could replace him isn't encyclopedic without further context and reliable sources. Several Times (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no encyclopedic value in this list, probably fails a whole list of article criteria as well. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been expanded and improved to have encyclopedic value. Lugnuts (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research and thought. Yes, it uses sources but only to advance the author's own concept. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just a general observation on the article: "Australian cricket team have been struggling to find a new off-spinner to replace him" - off-spinner period, I'd have thought any spinner who is good enough would do (it also implies to less informed readers that Warne was an off-spinner). AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. A fanism, unable to qualify. Notable references to the term on each player's page, properly cited, would be sufficient. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been expanded and improved to have encyclopedic value. Lugnuts (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. The article does come off a little like original research, but if the topic's notable, that's not a reason to delete but a reason to improve. I'm on the fence with this one. The term is widely used in the media (for those in doubt, google "next Shane Warne") and has been in use since 2006. But is it really an encyclopedic enough topic for a stand-alone article, or should it be merged to the Shane Warne article under a legacy section? Not sure. Will think on it for a few days... Jenks24 (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I assume that the absence of sources beside most of the names means that there is actually no evidence presented that anyone has ever called those players "the next Shane Warne". Not encyclopaedic. And even if they have been called "the next Shane Warne", that often says more about the person doing the calling than about the cricketer. Do we have any standards as to who has to be doing the calling? If I call the kid next door "the next Shane Warne", can he go in the list? This is a very silly article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has the kid who lives next door to you been picked to play for Australia? No, I didn't think so. Lugnuts (talk) 06:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, is being picked to play for Australia a requirement for appearing in the article? Please point us to where it says that? All I can see is "Each new spinner has been labeled..." The kid next door is new. If you think I'm being facetious and rude, maybe the quality of editing this article has attracted should indicate its absence of merit. HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it goes without saying, which is why I didn't say it. Bottom line is that it's too much work for you to help, so you go for the easy option of delete. Lugnuts (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of course. Or perhaps it could be merged with The next Ian Botham and The next Garry Sobers. Johnlp (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"delete of course" doesn't meet any policy rationale. Lugnuts (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It might seem like nonsense, but this term is frequently used by the Australian media to refer to the Australian selectors' obsession with picking up then discarding spin bowlers like dirty laundry. In all seriousness though, a Google search for the term found 14,200 results. This "phenomenon" is clearly well documented, if you include the articles w. Nathan Lyon, recently selected for Australia's tour of Sri Lanka, has already been dubbed by at least one source "the new Warne" (here). The article could do with a rewording of the intro eg. "Australia's next Shane Warne" is a term used to describe..., and perhaps a table of each player's results at Test level. Ignorant Armies^?!

Nice work on the expansion! Note to closing admins - most of the above delete comments were made by deletion monkeys who !voted before the expansion took place. Lugnuts (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for assuming good faith and attacking editors who happen to have a different opinion than you. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is better now (this thread HAS achieved something!), but still some way to go. Note to closing admins - most of the above Keep comments were made by editors with bad manners. HiLo48 (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comments both above and below, HiLo48 :) Despite the expansion, I'm starting to think if the creation of a "Popular Culture" section in the Shane Warne main article might be a better idea than a whole article devoted to the subject. Thank God they never did make that TV series. Ignorant Armies^?!

I really don't appreciate being referred to as a deletion monkey simply because I thought this page met the criteria for deletion. It does justify its existence better now through the addition of sources and context, but I'm still not convinced the phrase itself is genuinely encyclopedic outside the context of referring to Shane Warne. Several Times (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I might accept "Australia's next Shane Warne" is a term used by crappy tabloid media to describe.., along with a rename of the article to "Idiotic speculation from the Murdoch media" HiLo48 (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's just a term, hardly worth having an article. Where would it stop? Dominic Cork was dubbed the new Ian Botham once, shall we have The Next Ian Botham article, as Johnlp says? Or when Kevin O'Brien retires, shall we have The Next Kevin O'Brien? Or maybe we can have The Next Andy Lloyd (some poor soul at there might want to become the 2nd Test opening batsman not to be dismissed, and take a knock to the head to achieve it)? Terms are always loosely thrown around by media, Monty Panesar and Ajantha Mendis are testament to that. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speculative and not-Encyclopedic. This also isn't a notable categorisation of the cricketers listed. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. You may be called "next <insert great sportsperson>" and be dropped a month later. I notice high use of WP:BLUDGEON in this AfD. LibStar (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:CRYSTAL doesn't really apply here, as the article doesn't deal with who the next Shane Warne will supposedly be, rather it deals with the term, as used repetitively enough by the Australian media to comply with WP:V. Ignorant Armies^?! 13:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the article implies anyone with that label will be as good as Shane Warne, why are statistics even provided? The term is so loosely used by journalists with no encyclopaedic definition of what it means precisely, you can play offspin and be called it. Is it someone that will be as good as Shane Warne? Complete POV. Why not make an article on the next Ronaldo [2] or next Bill Clinton next Margaret Thatcher? LibStar (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopaedic nonsense. Just a phrase. Not even a often-used or well-known or notable phrase. Search "top of the class" - a common English language phrase returns 475 million Google hits and no Wikipedia article. Text could be merged to an article on the history of the Australian Cricket Team, if that exists. Bleakcomb (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. doesnt belong in a encyclopedia Naomib1996 (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a short mention into a new legacy section in Shane Warne. Certainly not encyclopaedic enough for its own article. However, as can be seen here it is a phrase used in reliable sources. The dilemma that Australia have in replacing Warne is also widely reported. I think that someone seeing this phrase in the media might well come here for more information on the concept. There are plenty of sources available and it could be wrapped up in a legacy section dealing with the succession question. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shane Warne. References for individuals mentioned can be applied to their respective articles. Putting them together in a list like this can be construed as WP:SYNTHESIS. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 06:43, 13 August 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 List of My Little Pony characters#Rainbow Dash. Sandstein 18:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Dash

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

As much as I hate having to nominate myself for deletion, I can easily be merged into the characters list already available. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 14:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain. Needs sources (third party sources, but also, character traits and frequency of promotion should be sourced to primary sources), and has issues with accessibility (uses a lot of pony jargon without explanation like G3, other ponies are not linked), but I think the article demonstrates that she has a particularly prominent role in the series and toy line. On the other hand, I have failed to identify any independent third-party sources that don't merely mention her in passing. Dcoetzee 14:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the article to the appropriate character list, Keep the editor. I had a quick look for sources and came up blank, once a character is released from the confines of a character list they really need to stand or fall based on the presence or lack of appropriate sources. Someone another 17:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the character list, keep the editor, per above. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling that sources would be available somewhere reliable. That editor probably needs to go though. ~~They lied about helping Castle Crashers to GA.^{(jk, you did 3 ok edits, but I don't feel they were significant enough to put it on your userpage)}~~ _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

u mad? Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 21:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just had to dig something up to pin against you for humor purposes. :D _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 22:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no matter how fondly one might remember them from one's childhood, we still need third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:47, 10 August 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. Non-admin closure. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Landguard Manor

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

Does not adequately show notability. Current "claim" to notability is "One of the finest known portraits by Sir Thomas Lawrence ... is located in its drawing room". Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a listed building (Grade II) and seems to be a landmark on the Isle of Wight. It's been discussed (albeit briefly, in most cases) in numerous travel books and other publications over the centuries, so it meets the general notability guideline. --Orlady (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - simply meets the notability guideline for inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, listed building status puts it in the top 7% of all buildings in the UK. Although Grade II does not give automatic notability, the range of sources shows that the article meets WP:GNG. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grade II does not confer automatic notability (I live in one and should certainly be surprised to find an entry in WP) and although the proportion of listed buildings is much less than 7% (2% is quoted here) it is really II* and I that matter. It is a hotel with some interesting architecture. Nevertheless, I agree that its notability and history drag it above the threshold. --AJHingston (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep Quite possibly one of the most invalid nominations I've ever seen. This manor is mentioned in scores of reliable history books and architectural books which makes it clearly notable and has it place in British history in the Doomsday Book. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If it was notable for the Domesday Book and still exists it is notable for us. Agathoclea (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well, I will withdraw my nomination per WP:SNOW. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:24, 4 August 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. Courcelles 00:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pdf ocr

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG; borderline WP:SPAM; speedied 3 times as PDF OCR, deleted on expired prod once under this uncapitalised spelling. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; sole WP:Secondary source is a review on Softpedia, which tries to maintain an exhaustive catalogue of freeware and shareware, and is therefore not a reliable indicator of notability. Gurt Posh (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability has not been established, fails WP:GNG, and the only reference that is not a primary source is a website that hosts a mirror download, not a reliable third-party source. - Sudo Ghost 15:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's already listed on the list of OCR software and doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable for its own page. Several Times (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That list-of page (as usual for them) is a listing of wikipedia pages, so the entry there hinges on this AFD rather than being an alternative if the discussion here fails to establish own-article worthiness. DMacks (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd argue that some entries in list-of pages may be sufficiently unique and notable to be compared to others of their ilk but not notable enough to have their own pages. That may be the case here - I'm not sufficiently familiar with variations in OCR software to determine whether this software stands out, or even whether anyone uses it. Several Times (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, my mis-reading. I patrol List of PDF software, which also points to the article in question, which has an explicit scope of "actual articles". List of optical character recognition software does not have any such explicit limitation. DMacks (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nom, been deleted and re-posted with no changes enough times. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 21:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. noq (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack notable coverage, as I didn't see any on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 10 August 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. Courcelles 00:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indian cricket team in Australia in 2011–12

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, no point of having an article on a future sports event. Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All international cricket tours are notable, and this consists of four Test matches, so easily meets WP:GNG. "no point of having an article on a future sports event" is the single worst rationale I've seen for deletion. Apply that to the next Olympics, or FIFA World Cup, or indeed anything. Lugnuts (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although I know WP:CRYSTAL would probably apply in many cases of future sporting articles, this tour is only a few months away and the ramifications of that are already being felt. The pressure of this upcoming tour is already being felt in selection and performance issues across both teams right now. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as CRYSTAL states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Lugnuts (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy While the topic is notable, this is not an encyclopedia article. It is a draft article and should be in userspace. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has reliable sources and meets WP:GNG. Guitarist^<<Talk>> 14:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No evidence has yet been provided that this article meets GNG. The only refs in the article are links to fixtures (not significant coverage by any stretch of the imagination) and no other sources have been provided in the AfD. At the moment, I'm leaning towards Mattinbgn's opinion of userfy until significant coverage is demonstrated. Jenks24 (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's an upcoming series between 2 full members of the ICC, of course it meets GNG. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "of course it meets GNG" – if that's the case then it should be easy to prove (i.e. please show some significant coverage). Unless what you actually mean is of course it will meet GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Lugnuts. Five Years 11:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I book some fixtures for my invisible friend, that doesn't make my invisible friend notable; notability only happens with independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What??? This is just an odd comment... So we delete the articles of the next olympics and FIFA World Cups? This should be kept like Lugnuts said. Kante4 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 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. Courcelles 00:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie Fenn

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

This player has never appeared in a fully-professional league, which means he fails WP:NFOOTBALL; also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nom. As the League of Ireland is not fully pro, he fails WP:NSPORT. In the absence of significant coverage, he fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails the relevant notability guidelines. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Only one source, and merely being signed by a sports team isn't enough on its own to establish notability. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:05, 6 August 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. Courcelles 00:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWAK

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

I can't find any reliable coverage of this term whatsoever, indicating that it is a WP:NEOLOGISM and should therefore be deleted. SmartSE (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NEO used briefly and non-broadly. Not notable as never covered by media, all hits are just acronym definitions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources aside from their website. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 7 August 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. Courcelles 00:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Barraclough

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

Contested PROD, reason given was that he was "notable for college soccer career". However, he still fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE and WP:NTEMP. --Jimbo^[online] 11:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 11:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. College football is not fully pro, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is no indication of significant coverage, so fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems here. First of all, NCAA teams are not professional clubs so they should only be included in the youth section. Second of all, this page doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Therefore, this page needs to be trashed. Delete. – Michael (talk) 20:31, 7 August 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. Courcelles 00:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summer vodka

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PROD-contested by article creator. Because Wikipedia is not a cookbook. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced recipe, see WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and NawlinWiki, can't find any mention of this cocktail online, non-notable neologism per WP:NEO. Gurt Posh (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG as this drink has not received WP:SIGCOV. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable cocktail per reasons already covered by other contribs. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable; nothing special about this recipeCurb Chain (talk) 08:20, 10 August 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. Courcelles 00:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King's College London Think Tank Society

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/King's College London Think Tank Society

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

No coverage at all in secondary sources. Fails WP:CLUB Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of ample third-party sources. I found two small mentions here and here, not enough for an encyclopedic article though. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, both of those sources appear to pre-date the formation of society, which occurred in 2010. Neither of them mention a student-run think tank at King's College London. The first contains opinion from another KCL group, the Crime and Justice Foundation, while number 2 includes a KCL academic on a panel judging think tanks. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the sort of article I would typically delete as A7, for nothing there is a claim of any reasonable notability-- the most the actual article claims is uniqueness. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 8 August 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. Courcelles 00:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hua Hsu

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

Despite the article being around for nearly five years, no-one has found any evidence that the guy is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Both a Google and Yahoo! search found very few links aside from one of his reviews, Facebook, and other sites that don't meet biography guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Lacking third party sources, this makes him a freelance journalist, and that does not make him notable.Curb Chain (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just one freelance writer among thousands. Doesn't qualify for biography. kakya (talk) 13:02, 10 August 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. Unsourced, deletion proposal unopposed. Sandstein 18:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Pass (Rugby)

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

No indication of the tactic/move's notability. Doesn't fit into any CSD criteria. Mato (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. —AIRcorn (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A player stands in the "pocket" when they are some distance behind a ruck and is usually a prelude to a drop goal attempt. Passing to that player has no special term as far as I know and even if it did it is no more notable than any other pass. However, a description of "Pocket" could be included in Glossary of rugby union terms. AIRcorn (talk) 12:58, 31 July 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, Courcelles 09:24, 3 August 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. Courcelles 22:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Corgill

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

Not notable actress, minor roles only - search returns little reliable to create a biographical article about a low notable person. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 2 August 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, Courcelles 09:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, lack of reliable sources. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 3 August 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 as not having sufficient sourcing to satisfy the general notability guideline. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Webinos

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

Ephemeral project, only just started. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is surprising, saddening, and very dissapointing to see a person apparently being a director in a French research institute (ref wiki User Crusio) to come up with such in-considerate comments and strong desire to delete an indeed very objective and well-written wikipedia entry for one of Europe's largest FP7 research and development projects. It is unfortunate to see such unfortunate activities on wikipedia from research peers. It probably makes a big bunch of EU projects and the Eurpoean Commission sad. I strongly object to the proposed deletion. Best regards. Truthprovider. 11:40, 3 August 2011 (CET). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthprovider66 (talk • contribs)

Instead of lamenting my behavior and attitudes, your argument would carry more weight if you would base it in policy. Please have a look at Wikipedia's notability guidelines. My position in real life is immaterial to this discussion. For what it is worth, I personally am part of a European network, too. We even published a peer-reviewed article about our network. But nobody among us has gotten it in their heads to create a WP article on a project that basically is not encyclopedic and does not meet WP's notability guidelines. There are databases where projects like this are listed, which do a much better job than WP could do, so we should not try to copy that. --Crusio (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether the project is significant, which it appears to be, but whether the article is encyclopedic, which it is not: it is a press release. Looking at the External Links, you've got your Website, your Facebook page, your Twitter feed, and your LinkedIn group; and here's your Wikipedia article: you've covered all the bases! It's a compliment to Wikipedia that online marketing campaigns today always want a Wikipedia presence. No guideline precludes an article functioning as an advertisement if stating facts of general interest has that effect, but an article that is only an advertisement inherently lacks the properties that an article must have. Many such articles are submitted each day and soon deleted. If you discover that competitors have slipped advertisements into Wikipedia, no filter being perfect, you have as much right to object as anyone else. See the Guide to deletion for details. Ornithikos (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominator: it doesn't matter whether or not a project is or was "ephemeral," only whether it is the source of multiple instances of independent published coverage. Chief defender: this isn't a personal attack on you or the project and you shouldn't respond by attacking the nominator. This article is essentially unsourced and if you want to keep stuff from being hauled to AfD, make sure there are sources showing. Okay, let's get down to brass tacks, shall we? Searching... Carrite (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THIS ARTICLE IN THE LONDON TELEGRAPH details the Webinos project receiving €10M in funding. The project is described as a "A pan-European project aimed at developing common standards for application development..." Carrite (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that many people ignore all bloggish types of material in AfD discussions, but there are substantial blog sources out there, such as THIS ONE FROM PAVING WAYS, which cites references consulted. Carrite (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD certainly feels the Webinos project is worthy of notice. Carrite (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here is significant coverage of the Webinos project FROM THE BBC, which states of Webinos: "The Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems (Fokus) in Germany is leading the effort, dubbed Webinos. It is a group of 22 organisations including mobile operators Deutsche Telekom and Telecom Italia, manufacturers such as Sony Ericsson and Samsung, and standards body the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)." Carrite (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very clearly this is a significant technology initiative that is the subject of multiple examples of substantial coverage in independently-produced publications. Passes GNG and I wouldn't be surprised if the snowflakes start to fall on this questionable nomination. Carrite (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does it make any difference that the many sources referenced could have obtained their information only from the Webinos project itself? Who else could provide it? It is all the same information, repeated in every available format. This is the signature of a Marketing blitz: surely a valid endeavor, but not the stuff of an encyclopedia. Ornithikos (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't make any difference. If four publications published four different interviews with John Smith about the new five wheeled bicycles he was building, the material they published could only have come from John Smith, bicycle builder — and Smith the Bicycle Builder would meet standards. Notability is considered a function of being featured in independently published sources — it is not a requirement for the subject to be completely isolated from the actual content which is published. Carrite (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vehemently. Another EU research project. Note that there is an offsite canvasing project encouraging the creation of these articles. Whatever else can be said about the project, the text of the current article is full of hyper-optimistic but vague, uneditable claims about the "Future Internet". Its style is such that no reasonable person could be expected to make sense of it:

...webinos will define and deliver an Open Source platform and software components for the Future Internet in the form of web runtime extensions, and complementary infrastructure components, to enable web applications and services to be used and shared consistently and securely over a broad spectrum of converged and connected devices, including mobile, PC, home media (TV) and in-car units. webinos promotes the “single service for every device” vision by providing the necessary technical specification in order to move the existing baseline of web development from installed applications to services, running consistently across a wide range of connected devices.

The webinos platform will directly address security and privacy issues as part of Quality of Service that users of web services expect. The addressed challenges comprise: how to provision and adapt security across a range of devices, services, networks as well as how individuals can gain control over the privacy aspects of their web presence regardless of the service that is being used. Context and privacy are intimately intertwined: rich context is valuable but without user controlled privacy it becomes a liability. Context and security are intimately intertwined: rich context is valuable but without user empowered security it becomes a liability. This dual approach is a hallmark of the webinos approach.

The objective is the development of a secure application platform that facilitates the creation of applications for multiple heterogeneous devices and operating systems, overcomes restrictions implied by proprietary and vendor-specific technologies, and enables the rapid creation of more personalized, secure, and innovative applications. Under this prim, the consortium has an ongoing affiliate activity running aiming to bring to the project further expertise in the form of use-cases and requirements or through direct participate in the specification process and open source development.

Verbal performances like this are the typed equivalent of a mountebank's handwaving. Prose like this is intended to impress and distract rather than inform. With text like this, notability is a non-issue; even if this were a notable project, the article still needs to be deleted and rewritten from the beginning in English. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a crappy article... That's not the discussion here, of course. What we are interested in is whether the subject of this article meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion-worthiness: being the subject of multiple, substantial, independently published sources. Webinos meets the General Notability Guideline, quite clearly. Fixing the article is a matter of fixing the article. Carrite (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you can extract actual information from this text, there it is: have at it. My contrary impression is that it is vague, meaningless, and uneditable, so confusing that nobody can be expected to follow it --- in other words, patent nonsense --- in addition to the neutrality issue. FWIW, lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Spam and nonsense can get deleted even if a case for notability could be made. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it may be an EU backed research project but primarily it constitutes a research effort in a heavily debated domain - web applications running across connected devices such as for example Boot2Gekco by Mozilla. It is not ephemeral effort nor it has just started. The project has committed to provide its results (software components, specifications) under an open source schema, adopt and contribute to standardization working groups and continue its existence after the initial 3-year period by establishing and sustaining a community. Up to now it has produced a number of industry reports and launched an affiliates programme for 3rd party engagement (both mentioned in the article). Additionally, several important specifications are anticipated by the projects shortly – i.e, according to the project's whitepaper (page 17) an extensive set of webinos APIs allowing web application to access devices resource by adopting and extending underlying open standards by W3C DAP WG and WAC Wakiki – something which of course should be depicted in the present article. In terms of external referencing the project’s approach on web application across connected devices has already been discussed by several accredited media worldwide Telegraph UK, ReadWriteWeb which might have gotten info by press releases but has also received critic by the authors as in BBC Tech. All things considered, this is an evolving technology framework that is currently under development, has been (and is currently) debated by media, produces new things and is open for people to engage even at this early point. If the article needs/should be updated to depict current evolutions or amend verbal stipulations this is a valid point.georgioGI 20:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC) — georgioGI (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict? - I think we can count on GeorgioGI's vote for the article. The History log shows that he wrote the whole thing! We can also count on Truthprovider66. He made every content change that was ever made. How about a Conflict of Interest statement from GeorgioGI and Truthprovider66. Does either of you have any professional relationship with the Webinos project? If so, exactly what is that relationship? Is it a paid or volunteer relationship? If the latter, does the project have any potential to generate income or other value for you in the future? Ornithikos (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a researcher for a partner in the webinos project and along with my colleagues in the project team we have worked in the last few days to update the webinos entry, as per wikipedia guidelines, with more than factsheet information that was the base for the first version. It now consists of entirely factual information including project deliverables. Webinos is an “open source” project under an IPR free policy hence no one makes direct money from the project. It brings together major industry players working in this area on open source delivery. And equally important very detailed technical specifications have been agreed between these diverse industry players such as the webinos APIs specification.The project results are also receiving strong media coverage, as for example the lately published Open Governance Index in ReadWriteWeb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgioGI (talk • contribs) 14:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its a little troubling that people have institutionalized a policy of using Wikipedia to advertise. However, the fact that the two major contributers to this article promptly deleted their accounts after firing a final parting shot is damning.--Djohns21 (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertizing. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This Webinos article should not be seen in isolation. One or more European consortia have a stated policy of using Wikipedia as a publicity tool, following these instructions. The instructions mention the importance of visibility on Wikipedia because of its high traffic, as if Wikipedia were a highway suitable for billboards. Dozens and perhaps hundreds of such pages already exist, all high in technical content, few with references to anything but marketing resources and derived publicity, and none of interest to anyone but a government funding agency, venture capitalist, competing project, or participant. Many have already been flagged for deletion on the ground that they fail several tests in Notability guidelines and What Wikipedia is not, particularly the guidelines about advertising. More are being flagged as they are discovered. Vigorous debate ensues in each case, with the writers of the articles often reappearing as vociferous opponents of deletion. Ornithikos (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not sure what to do here. It seems a newly-created user Dsr23 has done some work today (and nothing else). There still are many problems: many missing wikilinks paragraphs without sources, citations to dead links, self-written blog entries, and web sites that have nothing to do with webinos, for example. It is still not clear to me what the project does, and I have done computer networking for 40 years. It says "Apps" which means downloads to smart phones, but also jumps around to very different environments of Linux and televisions. Not sure if it is meant to obfuscate or just badly written. There also is too much crystal ball gazing. Speculation on how great something might be in the future does not belong. It would be like if a proud parent wrote an article about how their daughter was going to win an olympic gold medal in 2016. Even if the newspapers picked it up, self-sourced predictions are not encyclopedic. If they ever produce, say, a peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal, that might be cited. Every research project concerns the "future" so saying it does "research projects on future internet" is content free. As is "security and privacy by design"? Does anyone intentionally design something with flawed security? Makes no sense. W Nowicki (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Conflict? - To User:Dsr23: Requesting a Conflict of Interest statement from you is now appropriate. Do you have a professional relationship with the Webinos project? If so, what is that relationship? Is it a paid or volunteer relationship? If the latter, does the project have any potential to generate income or other value for you in the future? Ornithikos (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General Conflict? - GiorgioGI, who created the webinos article, answered a request for Conflict of Interest information by stating "I am a researcher for a partner in the webinos project and along with my colleagues in the project team we have worked in the last few days to update the webinos entry". That is to say, the COI level is 100%. The other contributors (Truthprovider66, Dsr23, Umnako, 129.67.151.47, Jplyle) all follow a pattern: they have no User page, they are obviously knowledgeable about the project, and they provide no COI information. They would appear to be the colleagues that GeorgioGI mentioned. If so, every contributor to the article has 100% conflict of interest. If the situation is otherwise, please provide correct information. Ornithikos (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am also a university researcher who works on (amongst other things) the webinos project. Before being kindly encouraged to take up a username, I was also editing under IP addresses 129.67.151.47 and 129.67.119.240. My edits were attempts to neaten up the page and rephrase to be neutral and appropriate for an encyclopaedia, having noticed the (in my view entirely reasonable) request for the original article to be deleted. I certainly can't deny that I have a conflict of interest. If you have a look at my edits, though, you will hopefully see that they mostly fixed links, introduced references and rephrased language to be clearer. From reading the COI guidelines, I realise that this might still be inappropriate ("strongly discouraged"), so please feel free to roll-back my edits and I hope you will accept my apology. I'm hopeful that the latest version of the article is now more appropriately written, and that webinos might be considered notable enough (due to media interest, academic papers, w3c demo page, book mentions) to be allowed to stay. If not, then is there a particular part of the article that still runs counter to guidelines and should be changed? As for the other accounts, I think Dsr23 is another member of the webinos project, but I don't know who Truthprovider66 and Umnako are. Jplyle (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, its good to hear some straight talk at last! I don't think that anyone disputes the value of the webinos project itself, and nothing precludes a person from writing an article about something they have a personal or even financial interest in. Few would suffer the rigors of Wikipedia editing if they did not have a specific interest. The problem is just that a page about a research project does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. Being worthy is unrelated to being encyclopedic.

If one research project could have a Wikipedia article, every research project in the world would want one too. The result for Wikipedia would be catastrophic! I suspect that all the project-specific European Union research pages will be merged into more encompassing pages like Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. Articles about such large-scale programs can easily meet the guidelines. Ornithikos (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After all of these keep !votes that bring nothing to the discussion, this is still non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Counting all participants in the project as one source of opinion, and taking the Notability guidelines at their word, the outcome for this page seems clear. I wish that someone would begin the process of actually deleting this page and its many equivalents, which where flagged have fared much as this page has. More encompassing pages, like Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development, can be extended as needed to describe the underlying research initiatives, whose notability has not been questioned. Ornithikos (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote the preceding Comment, I did not know how the deletion process works at the administrator level. I imagined that a deletion was like a content change, in which one of the participants eventually takes the point and does what appears to be necessary; except that the participant doing a deletion would also have to be an administrator. Evaluating a discussion of deletion from an independent perspective is obviously preferable. Ornithikos (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, despite the little Assume Bad Faith shenanigans above, the outcome here is absolutely NOT clear. I've got four sources showing above. This subject absolutely meets notability standards, no matter how spammy or COI-driven the prose. Fixing it is a matter of editing. The question here is whether this project is the subject of multiple pieces of independent and substantial coverage and it is. Carrite (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now, Carrite. Joining this discussion in flame mode, as in "little Assume Bad Faith shenanigans", will not improve the likelihood of a beneficial outcome. Nor, I'm sure, would you wish to stand behind the assumption of bad faith implicit in that characterization! This page has been the scene of a real debate, with valid challenges and relevant responses. Hopefully the tenor will remain so. That said, these questions: (1) The number of sources for Keeping this article is difficult to determine, because many of them seem to represent the same organization, as GiorgioGI himself implied. How do we know that we hear four independent voices? (2) Much doubt about this article has been raised with respect to Notability and Advertising. Could you detail the factors underlying your significantly different conclusions? (3) The References (which are rather more numerous than the guidelines prefer) are all or nearly all to webinos sites, news releases that echo the webinos marketing position, or other research projects whose status is similar to that of webinos. Could you clarify how such references constitute independent and substantial coverage? References to specific sections in Wikipedia guidelines that validate your conclusions would be very useful, since others have drawn such different inferences from some of them. Ornithikos (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flame mode?!?!? Are you for real? I was being fucking polite. 1. New Conflict? - To User:Dsr23: Requesting a Conflict of Interest statement from you is now appropriate. Do you have a professional relationship with the Webinos project? If so, what is that relationship? Is it a paid or volunteer relationship? If the latter, does the project have any potential to generate income or other value for you in the future? Ornithikos (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC) 2. General Conflict? - GiorgioGI, who created the webinos article, answered a request for Conflict of Interest information by stating "I am a researcher for a partner in the webinos project and along with my colleagues in the project team we have worked in the last few days to update the webinos entry". That is to say, the COI level is 100%. The other contributors (Truthprovider66, Dsr23, Umnako, 129.67.151.47, Jplyle) all follow a pattern: they have no User page, they are obviously knowledgeable about the project, and they provide no COI information. They would appear to be the colleagues that GeorgioGI mentioned. If so, every contributor to the article has 100% conflict of interest. If the situation is otherwise, please provide correct information. Ornithikos (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You're just lucky you don't get your ass run to ANI for garbage like that... Here's some reading for you: WP:AGF WP:NPA. Flame mode?!?!? What a crack up! Carrite (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how I saw it. I suspected that what seemed like several opinions were actually one opinion expressed through several proxies, and that some or all of those involved had an undisclosed interest in the project, which should have been described from the beginning. If true, that would be a very important thing to know when this article is evaluated. My approach was formally investigative, and it quickly got an answer from GiorgioGI, who described his COI in detail.

I inferred that the unnamed colleagues that GeorgioGI said are continuing to work on the article, were the people who had indeed continued to work on the article. I described that as an an inference and asked for any correction; none was received. One person replied by describing his own COI and offering to work constructively with Wikipedia. I replied to him that COI does not preclude a person from writing an article, the only question being the article itself.

I concluded that I had been correct: GiorgioGI and his colleagues, as he himself had described, were all chiming in, creating the effect of a body of opinion where actually only one opinion existed. I think that my investigation was honorably conducted and obtained some vital information. It did not cast aspersions on anyone. Neither did it ignore my initial and plausible suspicion that conflict existed. Assuming good will does mean blindfolding oneself.

I don't see that anger, obscenities, aspersions, and threats of retribution, whether or not these could be regarded as flaming, can help with the situation here. What this debate needs is opinions that relate to the article. Perhaps you could accomplish more by answering the questions I asked previously. I think that much could be learned by comparing and contrasting your conclusions with the very different conclusions that others draw from Wikipedia is not and Notability guidelines. Ornithikos (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not threatening you with anything. I don't run to mama when I think somebody is flaunting the clearly established rules, I make sure they know what they are and get a good taste of them. If they're still gonna violate them, that's on them. You're not the one closing this debate, fortunately, so don't go prancing around like this matter is settled. It's not. We're here to determine whether this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA-WORTHY TOPIC according to notability guidelines. I've got four unimpeached sources above. You've got a bunch of COI allegations. We'll see how this turns out, eh? Carrite (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You provide no answers to my questions, employ insulting characterizations, represent my support of the guidelines as a culpable violation of them, state as a rejoinder something we all agree on, and describe as allegations COI statements that the parties themselves provided. You have three supporters, of which two provided the COI statements and the third fits the profile described in the first COI statement. That does not discredit their opinions, it discredits your view of their disinterest. You have seven opponents with known Wikipedia backgrounds. You uphold your viewpoint with an interpretation of notability that is not to be found in the guidelines, though it does appear on your User page. Have you nothing of substance to bring to this discussion? I think the problem may be that things haven't gone your way so far and you blame me for it. Could my status as a Newbie be a factor? I am willing to talk about all such matters, but I ask that any personal disparagements appear on my Talk page, this being a Discussion page. Ornithikos (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I say, I've got links to 4 unimpeached sources above, including the London Telegraph, the University of Oxford Computer Science Dept., and the BBC. You, on the other hand, have nothing but a bunch of Assume Bad Faith COI charges and an obvious inability to grasp the concepts (1) of the policy of Assume Good Faith; (2) of the policy of No Personal Attacks; (3) of the function and daily practice of Articles for Deletion. Links to multiple, substantial, independently published sources dealing directly with this article subject are showing above. It is on YOU to either refute the fact that they are substantial and independently published, which you can't do, or admit that this topic meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline and remains a topic worthy of encyclopedic coverage. You have spent hundreds of words here; with a similar effort you could have fixed what's wrong with the article. Instead, you've taken the approach of non-stop harassment of anyone who disagrees with your OPINION about the inclusion-worthiness of this particular topic... Carrite (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using the term literally, your sources actually have been impeached: by the claim, currently unresolved, that they are little more than webinos marketing releases massaged to have the style of the outlet that disseminated them. Webinos might be noteworthy, but such sources would not support it. Conversely, your sources may reflect third-party evaluation conducted objectively using reputable techniques. If webinos is noteworthy, such sources could support it. Thus more than a source count is needed. The rest of Carrite's response contributes only invective, so I will leave it to speak for itself. Ornithikos (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite to remove the jargon. The initial presumption would be that a project with such distiguished sponsorship is likely to be notable, but we need references referring to the overall output of the project. It's not even clear to me from the article whether the project is in the beginning stages of establishing scope, or has completed its work by publishing the reports listed. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "sponsoring" is an argument that has come up during several AfDs of European research projects. It is misleading. "Sponsoring" in these cases does not mean that the direction/leadership of these organizations at one point sat together and decided to undertake a joint project. It does not even mean that the upper echelons of these organizations are even aware of the existence of this project. Let me give an example. I hold an NIH grant. The paperwork, however, is not an agreement between the relevant NIH program officer and myself, but a document signed by representatives of NIH and CNRS, my employer. It would be rather misleading, however, to say that my project is "sponsored by NIH and CNRS". The situation here is not different. Researchers working at these different "partners" jointly applied for a Framework grant. That's all. So in this rare case I have to disagree with DGG about the presumption of notability here. --Crusio (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

right, individual sponsorship by an agency does not count towards notability, though it has been mistakenly argued from time to time. I'd never advocate it for articles like these--though it does matter for something more closely related, such as a journal or a prize. But that a considerable number of high powered institutions sponsor it, is another matter. If your work, for example your work at the CNRS were supported not just by them and the NIH, but also corresponding agencies in 5 or 10 other countries, might not such sponsorship mean something, as showing widespread recognition? That's what I meant. I'm aware that European Union projects are all in some sense intrinsically sponsored by all the countries in the Union, so this indeed might be a problem with this and the related articles, if that is all that's meant by sponsorship. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I think you overrate the involvement of these different agencies. If I would want to apply for a Framework grant, I would look for colleagues with similar research interests in as many different EU countries as possible. I would then contact them and propose a collaboration. If they are agreeable, we would then discuss about an application. One of us (who's going to be the "coordinator") would then draft a grant proposal which would be circulated among these colleagues and amended as they see fit. Once we're in agreement, each one of us goes to our institution's signing official, who will sign the application on behalf of the institution. Without any exception that I am aware of, all that these signing officials are interested in is whether the administrative part of the application is correct and whether the proposed budget is sufficient to cover the cost of the project (as these things can get very complicated, these singing officials are often invaluable in finalizing this part of the application). They never evaluate the science (and in my experience, almost never even read the science part; after all, they are administrators, not scientists, and the different grant applications crossing their desks may cover a vast range of disciplines). The scientific part of the grant itself is only evaluated by a committee of specialists convened by the Framework organization, not by the different "partner organizations". I apologize for going in such detail on these procedures, but the workings of academia are sometimes rather arcane and very few people outside of research are aware of these issues, causing misleading impressions. In the case of Framework programs, it all sounds much more impressive than it actually is. --Crusio (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your analysis, For some of the projects, it's very clear that there's not much substance. But as a guide, can you specify any that do cross the borderline into notability? DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to say. As you said, perhaps we should take analogies to WP:PROF as a guidance. I'd accept as notable projects that have direct and significant coverage in reliable sources such as newspapers and such (because of a pass of WP:GNG directly - just as we do with an academic who does not passes WP:PROF itself). I would not take the existence of an academic article as evidence of notability, not even if the whole article was about the project itself. The reason is simple and again analogous to WP:PROF: all academics publish, so all projects produce publications, too. Only if those articles themselves generate large numbers of citations would this start to indicate notability. As most of these Framework projects only recently finished (or worse, only recently started), I don't think there will be many (perhaps none) that would have produced already now highly-cited papers. Does this make any sense? --Crusio (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Two EU project pages essentially identical to this one, SUPER and ISTAG, with similar Deletion discussions except that members of the projects did not much appear, have been merged into Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. Ornithikos (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Also, some comments (like in case of other similar AfD discussions) seems to be biased against EU research projects and against the EU projects in general. I would like to recall that being the EU x^th Framework Programme project is not the valid reason for deletion, and comments like "Another EU research project." are not really helpful. Beagel (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support this entirely, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do suspect EU projects have acquired a bad reputation here, but it's not our fault. There is, as noted above, an offsite canvassing site with a "how to" on creating Wikipedia articles without regard to whether they are actually encyclopedia subjects or not. If the resulting articles were written in neutral and communicative English, this would not be a large problem; as a genre, they tend not to be. So the resulting articles tend to break not only the notability guideline, but also the foundational neutrality principle, and there's been a huge streak of them. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias? - Beagel cites DGG, but DGG later changed that input after discussions (above) with Crusio, the originator of this deletion proposal. Beagel's contribution does not mention any supporting reasons for keeping the webinos page, but only implies that opposition to keeping it (and others like it) reflects bias against EU projects, rather than the reasons stated by the several opponents.

This claim is implausible. The originator of this deletion proposal, Crusio, is a leading European researcher in an unrelated field. The page Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development shows no bias and has grown recently to encompass EU projects similar to webinos, like SUPER and ISTAG. My own bias strongly favors EU telecom and network projects, because I resent the way the US has manipulated international developments to further its own hegemony. I suspect that the "bad reputation" that Smerdis of Tlön refers to reflects some resentment caused by this publicity campaign. However, objection to a specific deed does not show bias towards the doer.

We are counseled to assume good faith unless facts show otherwise. I had some doubts about the original contributors, but they addressed those doubts by forthrightly describing their interests, which having been stated are not problematic. The only relevant question is whether the webinos article passes or fails the guidelines about Notability in Notability guidelines and Advertising in Wikipedia is not. Reasonable people might differ on such a question. I ask Beagel, as I unavailingly did Carrite, to address that question by citing guidelines and showing how they support Beagel's views, particularly where others appear to have used those same guidelines to support opposing views. Ornithikos (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ornithikos. DGG has made three comments in this discussion page–all of them are valid, including Keep but rewrite to remove the jargon. I fully agree with all these comments, particularly about rewriting to remove all PR jargon. So, I don't understand what you are talking about 'DGG later changed that input'? As I commented that I will sign from my side above-mentioned comments by DGG, I don't have to answer any other questions. There are several good sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:ADVERT could be solved by editing/rewriting, and not necessarily by deleting. My remark that some comments are biased (and it still seems that certain bias exists) was not an argument for keeping the article, but just recalling, that being the Framework Programme project IS NOT a reason for deletion and that comments about this like I cited in my original comment, are not helpful in the AfD process. I also never implied that opposing keeping this article reflects bias against the EU. This is not a good faith interpretation of my comment. Beagel (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may well have overgeneralized DGG's statement to Cruzio, who first proposed deleting the webinos page, when DGG wrote that that "I accept your analysis." If so, I'm sorry that I did it, and I retract anything I said or implied that isn't so. Of course you don't have to answer any questions. You and others have cited the same sources to opposite conclusions, and some of them have described their reasoning, so I would like to understand yours also. Perhaps I misunderstood your comments about bias and the EU, and if so I regret that too. I was responding to "some comments ... seem to be biased against EU research projects" by expressing my opinion that bias was not a factor. The interested parties having identified themselves long ago, I am aware of no COI or bias operating anywhere in this discussion, nor of any standing claims to the contrary. That said, I wonder if we might now turn to focusing on the question rather than one another. As far as I know, the question is: what do the Wikipedia guidelines, correctly understood and applied, indicate should be done with respect to the webinos page? Ornithikos (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I believe that this page (and the many others like it) should be merged into Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development, thus continuing to document the EU project initiatives while eliminating the use of Wikipedia to showcase every individual project. Others would go further and simply Delete this page, but that might fail to give credence where it is due; the approach used for SUPER and ISTAG would be preferable. Ornithikos (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and allow rewrite in English. The project is probably notable, having received third party coverage, but I agree with Smerdis of Tlön that in order to be of use the article would need to be rewritten entirely in English rather than in PR-speak, preferably by a person not involved with the project, and mainly based on third party sources. Sandstein 18:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of sources, basically no reliable 3rd party sources that actually discuss the subject of the article. Notability is not transitive. i kan reed (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (COI: See my statement earlier) - As you might have noticed, I have been editing the page for clarity and to remove any PR-speak. I think I have done a reasonable job, but the criticism on this page indicates I probably have not. I would be very grateful for feedback on how I can improve this aspect of the article further. Or should it be left to someone not involved with the subject material? With regards to the "lots of sources" problem - as a relatively new editor on wikipedia, I'm not sure of the guidelines here. Could anyone point me in the direction of them? Thanks very much for your help. 163.1.88.5 (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC) -- sorry, that was a comment by me, Jplyle (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Conflict of Interest Guidelines define COI as occurring when "advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia". So the problem is not Interest but Conflict. The guidelines strongly encourage editors to describe any relevant Interests, but do not require it; and they strongly discourage Interested parties from editing, but do not preclude it. What seems to matter is not the creation process but the result of that process. An article is itself, no matter who or where it came from.

Here is a thought experiment could help detect conflict. Suppose another project existed, say netinos, that is so similar to webinos that almost anything said about one could be said about the other. The projects began independently and grew rapidly. Both have now applied for funding, but only one can win. The other will be cancelled, and contracts prevent its staff from transferring to the winner. Could you, with equal objectivity and equanimity, write about the competing netinos project exactly as you have written about webinos?

Everything comes down to one question: does the article follow the principles in Notability guidelines while avoiding the proscriptions in Wikipedia is not, and otherwise conforming to Wikipedia guidelines? Notability is often subjective, and the line between description and advertising is even more so. Opinions can differ radically, as the above Discussion shows. The guidelines about references that you asked for are Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Ornithikos (talk) 07:04, 13 August 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. Courcelles 00:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pattyboy

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

Apparently non-notable Internet celebrity with dubious claims of notability Rymatz (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BIO, etc. Gurt Posh (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A YouTube hit is not really notability. ItsZippy (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim in the article that "The video received international media attention including from the New York Times." is not supported by a search of news sources. I could find no evidence of any "international media attention". --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to the one arguably good source currently in the article (stuff.co.nz), I found the following from SocialMediaNZ which looks like it could be worked into the article. I was ready to !vote Delete on this article, but after finding this second source, I'm not so sure. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:05, 29 July 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, Courcelles 09:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Beagel (talk) 20:20, 8 August 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. Courcelles 00:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 World Grand Prix 2003 Preliminary Moscow

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

another non notable sporting contest. a mere 8 fighters and only 1 was notable. fails WP:GNG. also nominating:

K-1 World Grand Prix 2003 Preliminary Milan

LibStar (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both These are non-notable events. They lack reliable sources and were qualifying events for qualifying events. Astudent0 (talk) 12:49, 2 August 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, Courcelles 08:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both I found nothing to show these articles are anything but routine sports coverage. The articles also lack independent sources and the events were filled with non-notable fighters. Papaursa (talk) 21:06, 4 August 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. Courcelles 00:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PRoVisG

AfDs for this article:

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

Ephemeral project. No independent sources about the project (apart from the odd in-passing mention), no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Article was deleted after a previous AfD, but then re-created with an "impact" section. None of that seems to establish notability, however. Crusio (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as re-creation of previously deleted material. The previous problem was that it was written in excessively promotional and nonsensical language, long on "vision" but short on the concrete. That has not been fixed, and has in fact been made worse in the new version: Build a unified European framework for planetary robotic vision ground processing..... Develop the technology to better process and visualise the existing and future data from planetary robotic missions in order to maximize the value-added exploitation of these data for research, technology and education.... Increase public awareness of planetary robotic missions and the European contribution to their scientific evaluation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was tagged for G4 shortly after it was re-created, but this was denied by User:Crazycomputers on the grounds that the re-created article contained an "impact" section. Hence the second AfD... --Crusio (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

possible Keep apparently a significant project, though publication seems still at an early stage. Cf. [3] I'm not sure how to judge this--the citations to these papers would be the secondary sources. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 1 August 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, Courcelles 08:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Needs better references but probably existing ones are sufficient to establish notability. Beagel (talk) 20:40, 3 August 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. Courcelles 00:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Project

AfDs for this article:

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

Ephemeral project. No independent sources about the project, no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable mentions, none of which were found on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the few deletion nominations in this group that I do not really support. The various component projects taken together are notable; I think the references are basically to them, but a combination article is better. Independent references to some of them [4],[5] and especially [6]. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As with most of this kind of projects, I agree that some of the results may be notable and can/should be used to improve/source the articles on those topics. In the present case, "Philosource" seems to be a useful source for philosophical works that may otherwise be difficult to find. However, when I search on Google or GS, I don't really see sources that convey notability. Nevertheless, I could live with redirecting the current article to Philosource and re-writing it to focus on this database. --Crusio (talk) 09:12, 1 August 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, Courcelles 08:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - DGG says it all.-...--BabbaQ (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Beagel (talk) 14:27, 3 August 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PlanningForce

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

This software product does not appear to be notable. The external links all read like press releases rather than a real discussion of the product, and probably do not qualify as reliable sources either. The article creator has been straightforward about his WP:COI. VQuakr (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per nomination. More non-notable project management software. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - not enough reliable 3rd party (not PR) coverage to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I didn't find anything on Google and Yahoo about this company aside from their website. SwisterTwister talk 01:57, 9 August 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sushmita Mitra

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

This person appears to fail the notability guideline at WP:NACTOR. The roles claimed in the article are not significant, the references appear to fail verification, and I am unable to find anything more reliable. VQuakr (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't seem to be any reliable sources out there about the actor - housewife yes but actor, no Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:HOAX. User:Sushmita Mitra seems to be another sockpuppet of User:Akshata Sen, who was blocked for creating hoaxes. ---Managerarc™^talk 15:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of regular removal of the AfD notice by multiple IP addresses, I have semi-protected the article for the remainder of the AfD period. All AfD participants and the closing admin are encouraged to check the article's talk page before any final decision just in case an IP address does have helpful additions that might influence the addition. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She is spamming continuously. We have deleted and protected multiple articles already! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 12:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Everything about the article is false. And the IP's need to be blocked. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{13:05, 5 August 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AMPLE

AfDs for this article:

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

Original AfD was improperly closed as Speedy Keep because of the nature of the Nominator. Google indicates no reliable sources. There are many multitudes of scripting languages, but most are not notable. There are no reliable sources to indicate this one forth-derivative language is more notable than any of the thousands of others. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--lacks significant coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for the Acorn AMPLE. There seems to be one book that mentions the Acorn one [7], but the rest seems fanboy-produced material. Lacking any other sources, the topic does not appear notable enough for Wikipedia. It seems to have had no long term impact on the genre. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if the other one is notable. The shouldn't be a single article on two unrelated languages sharing just a name anyway, see WP:DAB. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Falcon/Mentor AMPLE. I can find some passing mentions to their larger products in Google Books, but nothing remotely detailed on their scripting language used therein. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:33, 6 August 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. Sandstein 18:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tweebuffelsmeteenskootmorsdoodgeskietfontein

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

It's either about a word, (in which case it shouldn't be here), a word construct, (in which case it should be here), or a farm, (in which case it's an unnotable farm, and shouldn't be here). Would've prodded but it, but incredibly it's been here for seven years. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Never heard of this, but there's quite a bit on the net, whether this information originated from Wikipedia or not is a different question. There is also a photo (looks a bit dodgy though), and a song. I think Administrators or very experienced Wikipedians are going to be needed to sort this one out. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 12:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is part of South African folklore in much the same way as Llanfairpwllgwyngyll-gogerychwyrndrobwll-llantysilio-gogogoch is part of Welsh folklore. It certainly pre-dates Wikipedia - I for one was aware of the name when I lived in South Africa in the 1960's, but until I read Wikipedia was not sure whether or not it was urban myth. Wikipedia has confirmed that it is not urban myth. I would also draw to attention that it receives at least 10 hits a day - more than many other articles and that alone should signify its notablility. Martinvl (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I am not familiar with this, but the article as it is currently written seems to be about Tweebuffelsmeteenskootmorsdoodgeskietfontein as a good example of other concepts, as opposed to being a notable place or concept onto itself. Can anyone speak as to whether this particular word is significant, or would any small town with a Afrikaans name serve just as well. As to the traffic, I suspect that it comes mainly from curiosity. The word is used by the articles Wikipedia:Unusual place names,List of long place names,Longest word in Afrikaans, and is tacked on to the end of Compound (linguistics). This is a really tough one, but I feel like it is currently more of a trivia factoid then a fully fleshed out concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djohns21 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The number of Google hits in no way prove WP:N, but if WP:RS can be met then it is a different story. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

move to Wiktionary, delete here The farm exists, near Coligny, North West and under the more common name Twee Buffels. The sources used in the article are less than stellar, though, and the question remains whether a farm should be covered on Wikipedia just because of its long name. WP in Afrikaans claims furthermore (without source) that the name is used as stereotypical Hickville, a tiny, remote, forlorn place. (Sample word use) As such I would believe it has a better place at Wiktionary. --Pgallert (talk) 10:07, 27 July 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, Sandstein 06:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move It should be moved to the Wiktionary but deleted here because it's more of a definition. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 11:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep when a word of phrase takes a life in its own work & is commented on, it becomes notable. the articles is more than a definition  DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 8 August 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. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muammar Gaddafi's response to the 2011 Libyan civil war

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

Unencyclopedic. Either merge with Libyan Civil War or delete. NPOV issues. I don't see the point of this article as part of Wikipedia.--NWA.Rep (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The war is a big topic and the main article is already huge. The war topic needs some sub-articles. This article (possibly with a renaming) is a good topic for a sub-article. This article has a lot of material and a lot of references. I just id a fast skim of the article. The article has the same pov as 99% of the sources do on this. The article is not written in an encyclopedic manner, but that is irrelevant in a deletion discussion. North8000 (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above + a little clean up and the article is fine. Dengero (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per North8000 & Dengero. Relevant topic, well sourced. Needs cleanup, but see no grounds for deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 20:06, 8 August 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oshawa Turul

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

No evidence of notability TonyStarks (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is no indication of significant coverage. The club therefore fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable club. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:34, 8 August 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:15, 11 August 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orangeville Athletic FC

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

No evidence of notability TonyStarks (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is no indication of significant coverage. The club therefore fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable club. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:31, 8 August 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. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elazar Abuhatzeira

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

Notability not established, and Wikipedia is not news. Article started just after subject's death with a promise of sources to come, and when queried as to why the article was put in mainspace with no sources, the article creator replied that "Wikipedia is a trusted source of news." Unfortunately, policy says otherwise, and literally half the article is about the subject's death and funeral. MSJapan (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News Archive search shows coverage over two decades in Ha'aretz and the Jerusalem Post. There is a strong presumption that many more reliable sources exist in Hebrew. The fact that the article was created after the subject's murder is irrelevant, as he was either notable or not notable no matter how he died. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather weak keep. The manner of his death was notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. There is certainly plenty of ongoing coverage of his death, including international coverage. This might have qualified under WP:NOTNEWS but he appears to have been a prominent and controversial figure before his murder as well. E.g. there are articles about him from 2010 in Ha'aretz[8],[9] and in New York Post[10], again Ha'aretz in 2003[11], Jerusalem Post in 2004[12], etc. As Cullen328 notes, presumably many more sources exist in Hebrew language press. Passes WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was notable and somewhat controversial individual, a spiritual leader of the Moroccan Jewish community in Israel, and the article is being gradually expanded. The fact that the article was not created until after his death has no relevance. Davshul (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and surely he received plenty of coverage. It is true that he was a spiritual leader of the Moroccan Jewish community in Israel. He was known for tax controversies and fraud accusations well before his murder. See for example this source from 2005. [13] See also the sources from 2010 by Haaretz cited in the article. Marokwitz (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. "Somewhat controversial" in a great understatement. The new section about "Fraud and tax evasion claims" asserts notability. Marokwitz (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if his funeral drew 10,000 including major national public figures, he was notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom should have merely clicked on interwiki to see a developed article in Hebrew. AFD is not the proper location to complain about stubs, and the right thing to do would be to add the morereferences template. Nonetheless, nom succeeded in bringing more attention to the article and causing a quick expansion. Given that, even without the controversy issue, the rabbi was quite secretive when he was alive and now after his murder more pictures and stories are emerging. Tens of thousands of people at a funeral and visiting the mourners certainly means the person was notable and frankly a major figure in th Jewish world. --Shuki (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—the sources in the article indicate notability. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of WP:RS and WP:V regarding the tragedy of this rabbi's murder and news reports about his controversial life make him notable, even if for notorious reasons. IZAK (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-the article is supported by diverse sources (such as YNet, Haaretz, and Jerusalem Post.) I tend to agree with Shuki that more news about R. Abuhatzeira could surface after his death....follow the trail (talk) 22:29, 9 August 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Townsend (basketball)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT#BASKETBALL. He has not received much coverage as an individual, did not get drafted to the NBA, and does not currently play for a top tier team internationally. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. Does not pass the basketball criteria at WP:NSPORT and has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so does not pass WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 08:17, 4 August 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Nizri

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

Procedural nomination of a proposed deletion contested at requests for undeletion; nominator's rationale was "Notability not shown by reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, as required by WP:BIO, nor does it satisfy the requirements of WP:AUTHOR". Your thoughts? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-Delete- Not finding enough/any notability from secondary sources per the nomination. As a comment it is perhaps just too early to have an article on this person. Perhaps time will show more notability, but for now I am not seeing a reason (per policy) or a need for this article. It can always be rescued or created at a later date tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - six years is more than enough time to find suitable references if they exist, and they do not. MSJapan (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the PROD nominator and I stand by my original rationale.--Muhandes (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per lack of good sources on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notableCurb Chain (talk) 07:55, 10 August 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vahnatai

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted in an ancient AFD, and overturned without addressing issues. No reliable independent sources to verify notability, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Only sources are self-published or primary sources that can't speak neutrally or reliably to this concept's notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-Delete- per nominations. Can't find reliable secondary sources. The sources referenced remind me of sourcing anything about the WoT series by using the WoT wiki. At best merge into article about Spider's article. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shooterwalker's nom and redirect to Avernum. Spiderweb Software's games are some of my all time favourites but there is no way any individual part of the plot/setting/characters can be sourced enough to stand as articles. Someone another 17:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Been looking at this forever. I'm a fan, but as per WP -- non-notable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable mentions. I didn't find any notable mentions on both a Yahoo! and Google search aside from gaming and forum sites. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only an unreliable source serves as the only third party source present in this article.Curb Chain (talk) 07:51, 10 August 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 keep. Page soft-redirected to Wiktionary - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 25#equidistant. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equidistant

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

The page is entirely nonsense and the title is not a suitable one for an article. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close This issue is already up with redirects for deletion: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#equidistant --DeVerm (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I'm surprised to see someone saying that the article titled distance doesn't say anything about this. That does not follow from the mere absence of the exact word equidistant. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to distance. By hindsight I think I should have simply changed it back to a redirect to distance. At the time I proposed this deletion, I hadn't yet noticed that it formerly redirected there. It appeared on the math Wikiproject's "current activities" page as a new article, I presume because someone put a mathematics category tag on it. Perhaps this should be a "speedy". I'm not altogether sure of the rules concerning those. It says "equidistant" is a past-tense verb. Any fool knows that it's an adjective. The remarks about geometry are silly nonsense. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:56, 3 August 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital estate planning

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

WP:NEO. I am unable to find any reliable source mentions of the term, "Digital Estate Planning." It appears to be a term being promoted by Scott R. Zucker and Michael D. Roy. But I can't find reliable secondary source coverage to establish significant coverage. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nomination. Somebody's selling the idea of seminars and consultancies on the impact of the Internet on estate planning. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Classic WP:NEO/advert. Toddst1 (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:B2B. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:22, 10 August 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Tank

AfDs for this article:

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

Barely meets notability requirements if at all--holds an obscure record and directed a short film. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's clear he's a very minor artist of little significance or influence. It pains me to learn how Guinness is having titles for such ridiculous category to push the sale of its publication. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Ohconfucious should adopt a slightly more cynical attitude toward the Guiness book, whose publishing venture started as a way to make money off people's drive to win bar bets. Not exactly the most idealistic of ventures. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for being under the mistaken impression that Guinness was a serious publication. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable per WP:VERIFY. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 11:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While the graphical prowess is impressive, let's not make this any more complicated than it needs to be for newcomers to AfD. This is not a vote, after all, it's the arguments that matter. Graphics only divert attention from the meat of the page and have the potential of starting an "arms race" between Keep and Delete voters to keep up. Carrite (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: This AfD has been mentioned at AN/I (link). Sven Manguard Wha? 04:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence in reliable secondary sources that the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion on WP. The Guiness record is, of course, pure silliness. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going to go against the obvious flow on this one. Profiles present on IMDB, and on allmusic.com. WP:GOOGLETEST returns over 19,000 hits. The artist's rantings and antics at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia.27s_oversights_of_swift_deletion is highly objectionable, but an artist being objectionable isn't a reason to delete the article on that person. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are seven cited sources in the article:

1-a trivial mention (23 words total) that Tank had a show @ Edinburgh Fringe, 2009
2-story about Guinness record from newslite.tv, a site that probably doesn't pass WP:RS (it's own tagline is "barely qualifies as news")
3-Tank is listed as playing the character "Russian Guard" on one episode of the TV series Alias
4-another slightly less trivial mention of Tank's Edinburgh Fringe 2009 show
5-a trivial mention (23 words, again) that Tank had a show @ Edinburgh Fringe 2009
6-primary source indicating acceptance of Tank's 5 minute short film My Pretty Pony to Oldenburg International Film Festival
7-Patch.com profile of Tank. For those that don't know, patch.com stories are essentially local news & features (on the order of a community newspaper story) commonly drawn from freelancers that often have no journalism training.

Discounting the redundancies, the assertion of WP:BIO notability rests upon the Guinness record, the show at Edinburgh Fringe, a movie shown at a seemingly non-notable film festival, and what's in the IMDB profile. The Guinness record is a throwaway record and received throwaway coverage. The Edinburgh Fringe show was one of over 2000 and doesn't appear to have been specifically reviewed, merely mentioned as existing. Reviews of My Pretty Pony are not to be found. IMDB lists only bit parts or work in productions of no note.

In total, I do not think this passes WP:BIO for lack of substantive coverage in multiple sources. I would be willing to reevaluate my opinion if further sources are found. — Scientizzle 14:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the above, non-notable, apparently (almost totally) undocumented in reliable secondary sources (of which IMDb is not one, and on his page there it states "IMDb mini-biography by: from official site") this person appears to be web-savvy and self-promoting. I have never seen a Google search return so many pages of blogs, e-tailers, lyrics sites and other user-generated stuff without one decent article from an RS (went 5 pages deep). As an indicator of his prowess in getting his name all over the web this is taken from his mini-bio: You can find Mikhail on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, MySpace, Elixio, IMDb, Amazon, iTunes, Vimeo. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scientizzle's useful summary is pretty comprehensive but to add to that, WP:FILMS explicitly mentions IMDB as more of a resource than a source in its notability guide. I don't believe it's ever been regarded as reliable. Per Captain Screebo, the fact that a significant number of Google hits doesn't return much of value tends to confirm the subject's lack of notability ("examining the types of hit arising ... often does provide useful information related to notability", from Wikipedia:GOOGLETEST#Search_engine_tests_and_Wikipedia_policies). I see nothing that would get over the bar of WP:BIO. EyeSerene^talk 16:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article was created by Stevenlevine1 (talk · contribs). As can be seen from press releases hosted by Tank's website, this name matches that of Tank apparent PR firm[14]. I will inform Stevenlevine1 about WP:COI. — Scientizzle 16:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response For what it's worth, I've actually already communicated with Steven, and he was very reasonable and professional about this AfD. He understands the processes here and is willing to work with them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though this article is part of a conscious PR effort by the subject, it is still reliably sourced and contains valuable encyclopedic information about a not-so-well-known artist. — Yk ʏк yƙ talk ~ contrib 18:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources cited are not sufficient to demonstrate that the subject satisfies WP:GNG per Scientizzle, nor is there any indication that the subject passes a subject-specific notability guideline. To counter the Keep opinions: raw numbers of google hits means very little indeed, and the total number of unique hits is under 800, "contains valuable encyclopedic information" is not a valid argument either, as it boils down to WP:ITSUSEFUL. Hut 8.5 19:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ If this news source is reliable, I think the phrase "Mikhail Tank has secured his place in history" indicates notability. Perhaps others can examine the source and make a determination. There may be other sources deeper in the google hits. I also noticed that a lot of radio station sites have the same blurb about him mentioning his Guinness record. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Torchiest, I will assume good faith, but are you serious? Have you read WP:RS about what constitutes a reliable source? It's not because the site says "news" that it's a news organisation. Click on the contact section and you will see the contact address is a gmail account. Oh, and this text is a press release, probably written by the above PR agent, and then farmed out to a million sites. Proof, your source and another random webpage with exactly the same text. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's fine. Like I said, I wasn't sure about it, and I was getting google fatigue. :) I wanted to make a good faith effort to find sources though. Thanks for checking. Changing my !vote. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, hope you don't mind I refactored your comment so the Delete appeared in the appropriate place, I was having page-loading stress earlier too, especially with your source as there was so much celebrity junk and ad banners on it. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources provided are fleeting and far too brief to satisfy the notability guidelines, does not come within a whiff of any of the author/entertainer/etc... ones. Consider salting the title once deleted, given the aggression and borderline harassment/trolling by the creator as well. Tarc (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while a few reliable sources seem to exist, they do not appear to cover this person's life in any significant detail as one would expect to pass the minimum notability standards. --Jayron32 03:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see any sources on both Google and Yahoo that could help this article biographically. SwisterTwister talk 20:39, 8 August 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 Speedily Deleted per A7 by DGG @ 01:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC). After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Bryan Grammer

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

Unknown candidate for US president, only source is an article in his hometown newspaper. Fails WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Small-town presidential 'hopeful' destined to be an 'also ran'. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Not only fails WP:BIO but WP:POLITICIAN as well.-JayJasper (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article can be recreated if he gets on the ballot anywhere. Until then, he's not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. No indication of importance.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No indication of importance via searches. Bgwhite (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Article shows no notability whatsoever- The Danville Register? Really? SOXROX (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As of right now, not notable. Article does not prove subject's notability adequately. —Diiscool (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close, because this article has been speedily deleted. Difluoroethene (talk) 03:41, 7 August 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 keep per nom (non-admin closure)- new ref has evidence that song has charted. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Squashed Nigga

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable song by fictional character. Fails WP:NSONG. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – song has charted, I've added a ref. Oz ^talk 00:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep- reference added that shows song has charted. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:51, 3 August 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. Courcelles 00:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Necro Blue

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

Non-notable film. Only Ghits are wiki sites. No GNews. Fails WP:V and WP:NFILM. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, either copyvio or selfpromotional. Interesting other contributions by the author promote websites under the control of the only bluelink actor in this movie. Agathoclea (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The entire content of the page was replaced 3+ days ago by a WP:COPYVIO notice. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:56, 7 August 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. Courcelles 00:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swift OS

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

Contested WP:PROD. Lacks independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not for promotion WP:SOAP. Msnicki (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted due to the fact that it is a real product, and the things in the Article are true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.225.89 (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Msnicki (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Msnicki (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted due to the fact that a download link has been posted on the Website so, people can now verify this information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanlovin2 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Beanlovin2, I see that you are basically a single purpose account, my suggestion if this is deleted would be to request that the page be userfied in your account space for further work if you believe that eventually reliable sources can be found. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the page then, I found this page certainly intresting because it provided me with knowledge of products that were coming out soon, Ill just request the page to be created by someone else, because i really need this page for my School Project — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.225.89 (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to User:Beanlovin2, then delete. The criteria for having an article in Wikipedia involve establishing notability via significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See WP:Notability for details. That simply isn't the case here. This is a very interesting-looking project, but until/unless it gets covered in computing journals or newsletters, the rules demand that it cannot be included in Wikipedia. If this topic might become sufficiently notable in the future, it could be "userfied" (moved into a subpage of your own user page), where you can continue to work on it; see WP:Userfication for a description of what this means and how it works. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although it's an interesting product. It is not yet a notable product and as such does not meet WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable software. Joe Chill (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well written, but no accompanying news sources make this product non-notable. Minima © (talk) 17:54, 7 August 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. Courcelles 00:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Kendall Osborne

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

Non-notable artist. Only ref is self-published. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not inherited, and there is little evidence of notability in her own right Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: No assertion of notability, no apparent notability. Toddst1 (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per lack of third-party sources, I didn't find any on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 02:27, 7 August 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. Courcelles 00:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Gelb

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

I can establish, with some Googling, that the man has published books (and that he has written for the NYT, at least once). What I cannot establish is that those books are in fact notable. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The books probably aren't notable. But the man might be. He's "a key spokesperson for the World Bank on African development issues". From the same source, he also directs the World Bank's economic research, analysis and advice to African Countries. He's also a Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Development. The BBC quote him as if he was a recognised authority here and here. On notability, he feels like a WP:BARE pass to me.—S Marshall T/C 20:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a totally different guy, sorry.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per 1.^ www.conqueringthecollegeessay.com,2.^ Conquering the College Admissions Essay in 10 Steps, Ten Speed Press.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? Keep because of his own website? Do you honestly try to find good reasons, or just say keep and then make something up?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say that my reasons for keep is unacceptable.. but I find your comment above unacceptable and you shoudl learn how AGF.. No need to go on personal attack. Especially as you yourself give no good reason to your delete say except Non-notable author.. hmm how?--BabbaQ (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Non-notable author.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have the significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources that show he passes the GNG.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability guidelines. Beagel (talk) 19:38, 8 August 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. Courcelles 00:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinyere Nwakanma

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

this article fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK and WP:BLP. the books mentioned in the article are self-published. Amsaim (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly non-notable, self-published author. Lulu has thousands more like her; they don't merit their own articles either. Yunshui (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources at all in the article, and I couldn't find anything via a Google search except for clones of the Wikipedia article and promotional pages on bookseller sites. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:23, 8 August 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. Courcelles 00:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hailey Wojcik

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

Brought to AfD because there was a removed CSD based on "sources and assertion of notability in March 2011. However, the article subject is a local level musical artist at best, who fails both GNG and BAND. Only two sources are cited in the article, and they are both dead (and not archived or locatable). The purported assertion of notability is likely from the uncited last line, where it lists places she has performed. However, just as an FYI, the Midwest Music Summit Wojcik supposedly played at features upwards of 250 bands in a single weekend. The festival seems to have only happened five times, and has apparently folded, as there has not been one since 2008. The other festivals I can find no useful info on either. There are also no GNews hits, and there isn't any press linked on the artist's official website (which is not the MySpace link listed, BTW). Official site consists of a blog, and nothing else. There are no performance dates listed at all on the site, and no reviews of past performances. According to the article, the artist released two CDs. I can find no reviews on either of them. Subject did a five question interview with AfterEllem.com in 2010, but every other hit is a YouTube video, lyrics site link, or Facebook/Tumblr-type things that are personal pages. MSJapan (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wannabe. I have to agree with the nom. very very few sources; even the ones in the article are now dead. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As Ohconfucius said, very few notable sources. I didn't see anything on both Google and Yahoo! aside from Last.fm, MySpace, Facebook, etc. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 6 August 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. Courcelles 00:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Adam Monroe

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC PseudoChron (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete vanity bio that I would have had speedied, but let's make sure deletion is definitive. all the sources are either unreliable (crap, trivial mentions, or social websites) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - No sources found on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 19:24, 4 August 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. Courcelles 00:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taleb Mohammed Lodi Jame Mosjid

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

No reference and failed notability; a related article was already deleted here ~ AdvertAdam^talk 06:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per lack of notable mentions, media coverage in general. Pehaps it's famous in Mathiura but both Google and Yahoo! only found a 123people and Wikipedia link (this article), not my idea of notable. SwisterTwister talk 00:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Whilst I have strong misgivings about this article's qualities, the brief mention of the subject tells me that it may be notable, but may also be a victim of systematic bias. However, we do not know what it's called in its native language, or whether the Anglicised name is the most common or even correctly spelt. Fault of which I would agree to delete.there are no sources on line. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:46, 3 August 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. The article has only one source, Metawiki, which is not a reliable source. The "keep" opinions are contrary to WP:V, a core policy. and are consequently not taken into account. Sandstein 18:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Wikinews

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

Non-notable web site —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have tons articles about all kinds of other Wikimedia projects that lack the strict level of sourcing we might require for other wikis. You don't need a New York Times article to verify that this Wikinews exists, people edit and read it, and that the facts about it written in the article are trustworthy. Steven Walling • talk 18:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF The fact that other articles don't meet notability guidelines (and should also be deleted) is not an argument for keeping this one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not otherstuff, it's that different kinds of articles have different notability requirements. Notability is always contextual based on the subject and the sources available. It's why we have special enumerations of the GNG for films, living people, etc. To say that we can't have an article about a site in the Wikimedia universe because it's not notable is a ridiculous thing to say, because it's quite to easy for Wikipedians to verify facts about another Wikimedia project even if there aren't a large number of independent sources talking about Persian Wikinews. Steven Walling • talk 19:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability_(web) There are web notability guidelines, though and this doesn't meet them. If there were Wikimedia-specific web notability guidelines, then this would be a different story. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a classic case where slavish adherence to the rules hurts Wikimedia rather than helps. We don't need ten New York Times articles to verify that Persian Wikinews exists and that people use it. Considering the article doesn't say much else, there is no reason to delete article, since it promotes accurate free knowledge about another Wikimedia project. By deleting the article, you're hurting not helping our goal. Steven Walling • talk 21:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:5 The goal of Wikipedia is not to cross-promote other Wikimedia projects--it's to provide a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (with notable, verifiable subjects, etc. etc.) We could literally create several hundred totally unsourced stub articles about the very existence of all kinds of Wikimedia projects, but I fail to see how that's helpful to readers of a general interest encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree about the goal obviously. What I'm saying is that this article meets our goal. Steven Walling • talk 21:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't understand Steven Walling's contention that we should keep this article because Persian Wikinews exists. No one is denying that. But this simply is not notable. It does not enjoy the necessary coverage in reliable sources. (Admittedly I do not read Persian, but I'd be willing to bet that this is true of Persian-language sources as well as English.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we must apply the same set of rules for a subject that is a 'member of the family' as any external organisation. The subject does not meet GNG. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I saw how much English Wikipedia has liberty! My article is short but it has Notability and maybe if you search "Persian Wikinews" maybe you don't see many websites but I suggest to you sirs, search "ویکی خبر فارسی" and see how much does Persian Wikinews Notability in Farsi Resource, I think I heard somewhere that Jimmy has said that "Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" but now seems it's not true. --Faramarz^Talk 09:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Of course anyone can edit Wikipedia, but Wikipedia doesn't cover every possible topic. Notability needs to be asserted and shown with verifiable and credible third-party sources. The English-language Wikipedia also prefers English-language sources, although this is not strictly necessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: Dear Koavf this article doesn't need to for example has BBC or New York Times sources because the source is ourself (for example I'm an active user of fa.wikinews.org). if you attention you will see there is no point that needs valid source, the article just says Farsi Wikinews is a member of Wikimedia Foundation Projects and does have X articles. --Faramarz^Talk 18:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Every article must meet the notability requirements. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is a part of our knowledge and also is a part of history, we can expand it. Mjbmr ^Talk 09:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really You can't expand it without sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found one semi-governmental ref. that says Persian Wikinews is a "tool of enemies of the government"!!! [15]. tags of this is more interesting:"murders of US and Israel"!"soft war"!"Holy defend! OMG:)Ladsgroup^بحث 11:25, 6 August 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. Courcelles 00:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PacificFlier

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

This airline was only operational for four months, which in my opinion should not be enough to pass the general notability guideline. Also, I cannot see any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, thus it clearly fails WP:CORP. AdAstra reloaded (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the length of time it was in operation shouldn't be a determinant of notability IMO, and I had no difficulty in finding coverage of the airline on reliable websites in Australia, Fiji and Micronesia. YSSYguy (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 August 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, for all articles. No bias against creating redirects to an appropriate target if someone is so inclined. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeker (Transformers)

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

First batch of a long list of non-notable Transformers articles (there are still over 600 articles on these characters). These are some of the more obviously non-notable characters, none having any significant third-party sources whatsoever. I am nominating the more obvious non-notable characters here as some previous AfDs have ended in merges which are then ignored by the creator and Wikiproject until someone happens along and does it (which usually involves just redirecting the article). I've fixed two today which had been like that for six months. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Merge to an appropriate character list, Edward321 (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect:

Seeker (Transformers) --> List of Decepticons

Octopunch --> List of characters in Transformers comics

Krok (Transformers) --> List of Autobots

Liege Maximo --> List of Decepticons

Longview (Transformers) --> List of Autobots and List of Decepticons (two separate toys)

Magnificus --> List of Decepticons

Nemesis Breaker --> List of Decepticons

Deployers --> List of characters in Transformers comics

Devcon --> List of Autobots

Emirate Xaaron --> List of Autobots

Lord Cholmondeley --> List of The Transformers human characters

Comettor --> List of Autobots

Impactor (Transformers) --> List of Autobots

Rockbuster (Transformers) --> List of Maximals

There's no question-- none of these characters exhibit any notability outside of their in-universe context. Merging and redirecting as per the given information on those pages. I can also help with merging-- I will watch the page. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP/MERGE/INDIVIDUALIZE, not that any of these individual characters are particularly noteworthy, but as some of the are characters in anime series or comic which have articles, I'd merge them into those series. The nominator's complaint about it taking too long to merge the articles is completely invalid. Wikipedia has no due date. Mathewignash (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no due date, but since you don't take any responsibilty for cleaning up the issues you have caused, then some action has to be taken. When the community decides an article should be merged, if it is your article and you take no action, then someone else must do so. You have taken no action whatsoever to fix the non-notability and fair-use issues in your articles, and quite frankly this is starting to border on the disruptive. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you are saying I own the articles in question? I didn't know that. No wait, I'm "disruptive" by not carrying out the edits you want fast enough, so I guess YOU own ME. Mathewignash (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can't have it both ways. You are the first to complain when people try to delete articles or content from those articles, but you won't lift a finger to actually fix problems that have been identified. Personally, if I had created those articles, I wouldn't want them to sit around with a great big purple AFDMERGE tag on them for months, I'd actually do the merge - at least I'd know that it was done properly then, as opposed to someone else coming along six months later, assuming (correctly) that no-one has any interest in a merge, and just redirecting it. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge suggestions:

Seeker (Transformers) --> List of Decepticons

Octopunch --> Pretenders (Transformers)

Krok (Transformers) --> Action Masters

Liege Maximo --> List of characters in Transformers comics

Longview (Transformers) --> List of Autobots and List of Decepticons (two separate toys)

Magnificus --> List of Decepticons

Nemesis Breaker --> List of Transformers: Cybertron characters

Deployers --> List of characters in Transformers comics

Devcon --> List of Autobots

Emirate Xaaron --> List of characters in Transformers comics

Lord Cholmondeley --> List of The Transformers human characters

Comettor --> List of Autobots and List of Transformers Armada Mini-Cons (two seperate characters)

Impactor (Transformers) --> Wreckers (Transformers)

Rockbuster (Transformers) --> List of Beast Wars Neo characters

Mathewignash (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Just like there are over 600 Pokemon species, there are only a handful that are notable. Those that are not may still have a place in the universe as 'minor characters'. I don't know enough about the details, but there are those prepared to rationalise this, and I would leave it in their capable hands. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge As Ohconfucius says, there are Pokemon species and not each one is notable. I too do not know enough about Transformers to ~~access~~assess the notable characters, so I too can not judge which are notable and which are not.Curb Chain (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The bottom of the barrel for Transformers fancruft. Toy guides and fan-driven fansites were attempted sources, none of which pass out guidelines. Delete all and be done with this, please, this is becoming a massive time sinkTarc (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These again are poorly sourced articles with questionable notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:49, 12 August 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. Courcelles 00:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New Hampshire Women's Caucus

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

After removal of copyright violations, nothing much is left of this article. Notability has not been established for this organization in accordance with the general notability guidelines, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All sourcing provided either lacks independence or merely supports existence of individual members of the organization's advisory board. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 14:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm building this entry -- it's a new organization so how does one establish "notability" for wikipedia standards? I've looked at the guidelines but would appreciate anybody's help! thanks! Litendum (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Coment Following my involvement on the user's talk page, I cast no !vote here. But to answer the above question, you need to quote secondary sources - newspapers, periodicals, articles in magazines, etc. If none exist then the article does indeed not possess wikipedic notability. Sorry. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I see, thanks so much for the help. I'll add that stuff. Litendum (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG. The biggest problem I see is that this group hasn't done anything at all yet, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like spam. The article is about an organisation that has up to now only been spoken about and has not even helds its first meeting. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for organisations to showcase themselves. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a crystal ball exercise, possibly with promotional intent. After the first caucus takes place this fall, gather together published sources about the event and the group and write an article. Until then, this should be userfied. Carrite (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too soon. Both Yahoo! and Google didn't get any media coverage aside from this announcement here. I don't think that's enough for an encyclopedia's article though. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 5 August 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. Courcelles 00:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Farr

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

This article doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. Local politician and preacher - served on city council and as president of local branch of civil rights organization. The sources are all obituaries (I think these are all paid obits, which are not considered reliable sources). There seems to be no real independent coverage of this man and his legacy doesn't appear to extend beyond the city. Karanacs (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. cmadler (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur. --Kumioko (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by author's request; Mr. Farr was a major figure in the civil rights movement in northwestern Louisiana. Billy Hathorn (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage sufficient for WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Novaseminary (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Novasemianry, plus, upon close review, no (even unsourced) indication in text of notability North8000 (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources found on Google and Yahoo that could help a biography. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 9 August 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. No sources = no article. Sandstein 18:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey (Card Game)

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

No sources. StevePrutz (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment Problem here is we have no single reference. Author should be informed giving at least 1 reliable source under WP:RS. Sehmeet singh Talk 16:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are enough pages explaining the rules (example), but there's no coverage of the game per se, which would establish notability. Hence the article probably doesn't meet WP:GNG. On the other hand, the article mentions the game is most popular in India, so perhaps the lack of on-line English sources is due to that. Perhaps the author has some print sources, let's wait if he responds (he was editing as of July 9th, so there is hope). Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was a book written exclusively about the game around 1880 it seems. If the author could provide the name of the game written out in its native language, I'm sure we would find better sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems there are a number of card games which go by the name donkey, such as this and this. I would recommend that the article gives a brief outline of all card games which go by the name Donkey (provided they have adequate references). ItsZippy (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have played this game with a number of (indian) friends. The name I know it by literally translates to donkey (and the language it was taught in has no script, so can't type it out). The gameplay has some similarities to Hearts (card game), namely follow by suit or hit/cut if you can't, so they may actually have some common ancestry. -- Prod (Talk) 17:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without a source, it is hard to verify that this is a notable game is called donkey, especially given the large number of other games called donkey. --Djohns21 (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete No need to delete , the game really exist. -- Raghith 09:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or userfy for additional work on sources). In its present form, the article fails WP:RS and WP:V because it has no sources at all. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This is know under different names in different locales. Unfortunately, it maybe be played commonly, but because we have not third party sources, this is not wikipedia-article worthy.Curb Chain (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Stricken out because sources provided in this afd does not describe this game, under further investigationCurb Chain (talk) 07:34, 10 August 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. Courcelles 00:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DrunkDuck

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails both WP:WEB and WP:GNG. LiteralKa (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable website, passes the GNG. This article discusses the comics in the internet and mentions DrunkDuck as one of the websites in which the most comics are published This one about the purchase of DrunkDuck [16] I would search more, but I won't. Regards, Diego talk 18:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was also referenced here. The actual page doesn't seem to have 3rd party references, but references can be found. snaphat (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wouldn't that fall under trivial mentions? LiteralKa (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't believe so in this case. My understanding is that point of the book is to discuss the evolution of comic books. The reference is used in the book to show an example of the largest distributors of online comics. snaphat (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just 6 words on the topic, buried in a footnote, is about as trivial of a trivial mention as a trivial mention can get. Rangoondispenser (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator is correct here. There are no sources at all in the article, and nothing but the briefest, most trivial of mentions have been provided here, so this misses both WP:WEB and WP:GNG by a long shot. Rangoondispenser (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain: On the one hand, this fails the two criteria under WP:WEB that are more inclusive than WP:GNG. I can't find anything about it winning an award, and DrunkDuck is not "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". The reference here is also trivial. The GNG speaks of "non-trivial" coverage, enough to extract content without using original research, and six words is clearly trivial. However, the article about the purchase of DrunkDuck may be long enough to extract some actual juice from. It's also good that it discusses the site externally, as opposed to just talking about its content. Yet since Google Books only shows you a little bit of the periodical, there's no way of telling how trivial or non-trivial the coverage in that source is. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a trivial maybe two sentences about Drunk Duck in that article. It's also of course a single source, and we need multiple sources. Rangoondispenser (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete G&PW and Rangoondispenser have proven that what little coverage exists is incidental and trivial. I have found nothing of substance in a Gnews search. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything beyond message boards linking and what has already been mentioned. --Djohns21 (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:WEB and WP:GNG. This subject sounds like it ought to have independent, reliable, nontrivial coverage substantiating notability, but I wasn't able to find anything I would consider acceptable via a Google search. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:06, 9 August 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. Courcelles 00:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Baseball

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable club competition. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes forget to check for past nominations before an XFD, and this is one of those times. However, it seemed to pass last time on WP:GOOGLEHITS and the unchallenged notion that "two functioning RS's" satisfies GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How did this pass last time? Seem to be some sort of novelty thing that is of local interest in Florida.. Dont see this having any sort of lasting notability. Spanneraol (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Its still around (surprisingly). There's a 2011 article in The Ledger using its new name of Double Diamond Baseball. I've added to the article. —Bagumba (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources such as: 1) Orlando Sentinel , 2) Sanford Herald, and 3) 13News in Central Florida, 4) Daytona Beach News-Journal. Other sources might be found searching "xtreme baseball" or "National Xtreme Baseball League". The teams seem to be based in Florida, hence the non-national coverage. However, this is not WP:ROUTINE coverage that is the problem sometimes with local coverage used to establish notability, and multiple sources do exist. —Bagumba (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources all seem rather local and are therefore not terribly independent of the subject. Alex (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, two reliable independent sources documenting this sport DOES meet GNG. This is a small footnote to baseball history documented here, not some bar game dreamed up last night. And, per Begumba above, this is represented as the subject of at least four — an open and shut Keep. Carrite (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Comment I dont think "local" sources for the professional league should be be a factor because the article is about the sport in general, and not specifically the league where WP:CORPDEPTH might apply to local sources for a company. While I think the sources cited in the article already show notability of the sport, routine mentions in books and news on Google of the newer term, "Double Diamond Baseball", hopefully convince others that the sport is played out there and does draw some interest. WP can help educate others that run across the sport but never heard of it (like myself before).—Bagumba (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm as surprised as anybody else that this is a thing, but it's being played and its being written about verifiably in reliable sources. However, I'm not sure Double Diamond Baseball actually is the same thing as extreme baseball. In Extreme Baseball, both teams run the bases (in opposite directions from each other) at the same time. In Double Diamond Baseball, one team runs the bases at a time, but alternate batters run in opposite directions. I think. gnfnrf (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They both were credited in sources to Phil Weidner's invention in 2006, so they might be slight variants if they are different. Content of the article might need some clarification, but it seems both would be in the same article. The NXBL uses both terms, so there website might have more info. Again, its more of an article content issue than notability. —Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 4 August 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 CRDF Global. People are unconvinced that this is independently notable. Sandstein 18:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Innovation through Science and Technology

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

An initiative to spur economic development. Just because it is funded by the U.S. Department of State does not exempt the author from providing evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to CRDF Global which is implementing the program. The references are not impressive, and a search of the Google News Archive suggests that the initiative has gotten minimal press. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep from a GIST conference announcement :"In total, more than 200 participants representing the research, government, private business, university and NGO sectors of 25 nations have participated in prior GIST conferences in Alexandria, Egypt and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, respectively." - certainly not a mom-and-pop shop, has global notability regardless American press. Lolo Sambinho (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I don't know how MelanieN used google archuive search, but it missed A LOT, such as a Malaysia newspiece ora Saudi Arabia newspiece, which demonstrate high profile of the project. (although I have to say that the name is stupid (how else innnovation can b e? "Through Politics and Bureaucracy"?)) Lolo Sambinho (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of reliable sources about the initiative, and therefore it does not meet WP:GNG. Any useful information may be merged into CRDF Global, if properly sourced. Beagel (talk) 19:35, 6 August 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 Norilana Books. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mansfield Park and Mummies

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

Unsourced. StevePrutz (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Quirk Books, which publishes all of these silly books. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Why would you redirect to Quirk Books? The book was published by Norilana Press, not Quirk. Shsilver (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ~~Quirk Books~~ Norilana Books. There weren't any notable mentions on both Google and Yahoo, aside from sellers, blogs, and Facebook. EDIT: I just went by what it said here of Quirk Books. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you merge to Quirk Books? The book was published by Norilana Press, not Quirk. Shsilver (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Shsilver (talk) 03:42, 6 August 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. v/r - T P 22:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Saucedo

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

No clear reason of notability. Does not meet any of the requirements in Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Boxing Cambalachero (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – He does meet WP:NSPORTS since he has fought for a major world championship (WBA featherweight) per this. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Giants, who has verified that Saucedo meets the boxing criteria at NSPORTS. Jenks24 (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NSPORTS.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator is incorrect. Per Giants2008, meets Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Boxing as he has fought for the WBA Featherweight title. The article certainly needs improvement though, as his notability is not explicitly established. Should be easy enough given the large number of notable sources available. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fighter is meeting NSPORTS. Xajaso (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:03, 4 August 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. Sandstein 18:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hussainabad block

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

Lacks references and is of poor quality. I'm not sure how to clean it up, and it would need a lot of work to stay around. Almost no citations. Ender The Xenocide | ( Talk | Contribs) 23:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nothing in the nomination statement constitutes a policy-compliant reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is a verified article on a geographic subdivision, which qualifies it as notable. The lack of references and need for cleanup should be addressed by maintenance tags (or actual maintenance), not deletion. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - verified article on geographic subdivision,--BabbaQ (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy redirect -- Isn't this article just Hussainabad, Jharkhand but under a different name (and badly written)?~~

if the article has verified sources it shouldnt be merged.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a duplication of an existing topic, it must be.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, it's different. Stubbify and keep--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:47, 4 August 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.