Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 28

< 27 May 29 May >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 00:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Pinango

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball pitcher. Statistically, he had no major accomplishments that would merit an article. He played in the LMB, but that league's notability is currently in limbo. Since it is considered a minor league by bother Major League Baseball and Mexico, I too believe it is just another minor league. Alex (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - per playing in the Mexican Baseball League, the top professional league in Mexico, as per WP:ATHLETE. Rlendog (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rlendog again. I know there are some who want WP:BASEBALL/N rewritten, but at the moment it still includes "top-level national league" as part of the criteria (as I think it should). Qrsdogg (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rlendog and Qrsdogg. The LMB's status isn't in "limbo", in spite of the efforts of a few editors to misinterpret the guideline as written. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an interesting perspective on that conversation. I see a guideline that says "top-level" and see a league that is subservient to MLB and figure that means its not top level. Pretty straightforward interpretation. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems like it's more than a "few editors." Alex (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • MLB teams don't have affiliations with LMB clubs, don't provide players to fill the rosters of LMB clubs, and don't have any voice in transactions made by LMB clubs. LMB clubs operate with complete autonomy. A LMB club could release all its players and burn down its home stadium tomorrow, and nobody in MLB would have any grounds for objection. To describe that state of affairs as "subservience" is certainly an interesting perspective... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not so much, when you consider the Mexican League is considered to be on par with the IL and PCL. Just because they're independent doesn't mean they're top level. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's really a shame there weren't more editors contributing to the recent discussion on the LMB. I consider the matter of notability vis-a-vis playing in the LMB to still be an open question, and therefore shall abstain from further !voting on such subjects until that changes, and would further suggest a moratorium on nominations of this nature until consensus is reached. -Dewelar (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an open question in the sense that any policies/guidelines can be changed if a consensus to change them emerges. No such consensus emerged from the most recent discussion of LMB notability, and since the discussion is seems pretty dead at this point, the existing standard (i.e. players for LMB clubs are inherently notable) remains in place in the absence of further developments. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The open question is whether the majority of currently active editors understands that the intention of the guideline is as you say, since (whether you are willing to admit it or not) it lacks clarity as written. Until the guideline is clarified, there cannot even be a real discussion on the matter. -Dewelar (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in the most recent discussion, if people would like to re-word it in a way that preserves the meaning toward which it was written, I have no problem with that. There did not, however, seem to be much interest in doing so by the other parties in the discussion, so it didn't happen. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As near as I can tell, the only real change that needed to be made was the removal of the word "major", but that didn't seem to have consensus support, including from you. That's why I didn't change it. -Dewelar (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If any admin looks at this discussion and believes it's snowing, he or she should be suspended immediately on the grounds of gross incompetence. -Dewelar (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Helpful One 00:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Phelps (baseball)

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

Potentially non-notable minor league player. Not currently on the 40-man roster and he has never played in the major leagues. He is not ranked by Baseball America as one of the Yankees' top ten prospects. I might suggest a merge. Alex (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The nominator's rationale is disingenuous. Phelps isn't on the Yankees 40-man roster... because MLB's roster rules don't require players drafted out of college to be added to a team's roster (or made eligible for the Rule 5 draft) until after the completion of the fourth season after their date of signing, and 2011 is that fourth season for Phelps. Baseball America didn't list him as one of the team's top ten prospects... but they did give him a full writeup in their 2011 prospect guide, they did rate him as having the best slider in the Yankees' system, (Link), and the Yankees themselves obviously think of him as a significant prospect, insofar as they named him their farm system's "Pitcher of the Year" last year (Link). For that matter, so does the Eastern League, since he was one of their All-Stars last season. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hit bull, win steak. That's a shoddy reason to nominate for deletion. While playing in the majors is an automatic qualifier, not playing in the majors is not a disqualifier. Baseball America also does not decide who is notable. He's a 24 year old in Triple-A with a really high chance of making a major league debut this season, let alone ever. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Hit and Muboshgu.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Hit and Muboshgu. A highly rated prospect with enough independent coverage. Rlendog (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Peterson

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. There are multiple issues with this article, notably: the references all seem to be either WP:ROUTINE or they are not independent enough from the subject. The ones that do not fall into the aforementioned categories seem to focus on small, tidbit-y parts of his career that in themselves do not make this person as a whole notable. This article also does not seem to be written in a neutral point of view. Professionally, he never reached above the lower minors, peaking at High-A ball. Alex (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While this article would benefit from a serious cleanup, that wouldn't make the subject notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All references are routine/run-of-the-mill and none of them (nor any google/gnews search I used) can provide significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which is what's required to pass WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Horrigan

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

No notability WP:N; no independent sources - looks like self-promotion Plonkton (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The subject would appear to have acquired notability per WP:PROF criterion 5 since this article was written, if he didn't have it before. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep per Phil Bridger. WP:PROF criterion 5 is met. RayTalk 01:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What named chair does he hold? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Try clicking on the link that I provided above. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only to the end of the year it seems! Xxanthippe (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
It doesn't matter. Criterion 5 applies if the person "holds or has held a named chair appointment [...] at a major institution of higher education and research" (WP:PROF). Guoguo12 (Talk)  20:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. All established editors agree that the book is not notable enough for an article.  Sandstein  07:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stick Man

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

Self-published novel of suspect notability. Article is almost entirely based on self-published or questionable sources and dead links. Possible self-promotion or conflict of interest, as main contributor only appears to edit articles related to Richard Rossi. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Promotional article. The book has not received significant attention. Many of the citation links are dead.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources about this self-published book. The cavalcade of references in the article are unreliable. All the dead links are to World Book and News which allows anybody to submit a story / press release. And it is unclear what editorial oversight is exercised in AssistNews, the only working link. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not finding any coverage of it in reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Opposition to proposed Deletion:

WAKOWSKI'S MISREPRESENTATIONS This article should not be deleted. A quick perusal of the novels in the category "Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania" in fiction will show that "Stick Man" has been selling better and garnered more attention than most of the novels listed there. Although I cannot divulge my sources as a freelance reporter, I know that Richard Rossi is currently being interviewed for profiles in major news outlets about the success of the Stick Man book in publications that will soon exceed the need for additional source citations. If this article is deleted, it will only need to be re-added when the additional articles are released. Mike Wazowski has a bit of an ax to grind as he has a history of misrepresenting and maligning Mr. Rossi and articles related to his work. As an example, Assist News is an international news wire service that Wazowski fraudulently represents as a self-published source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.48.100 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Future coverage which has yet to exist is not a reason for keeping this article. -- Whpq (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Past media coverage of the author is notable, therefore the revelations in his book are a reason for keeping this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.25 (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is no "past media coverage". The Assist News coverage is dubious as a reliable source, and World Book and News is not a reliable source. So what I see for past coverage is somewhere between zero and one. -- Whpq (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Wikipedia past protocol, if the author of a book has received notable press, the book they write is considered more worthy of inclusion. The above editors are apparently ignorant of this exception to their spurious and biased arguments. The article on Mr. Rossi himself has many media citations. Also, because of the above editors bias against Mr. Rossi, they demand a higher standard of notability for his book than other novels. Hundreds of novels are listed on Wikipedia without a single press citation. As was mentioned earlier, the category "Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in fiction" contains scores of novels of geographic interest to Pittsburgh like Rossi's, but many have much less notability. Rossi's novel consistently and daily ranks higher in sales on Amazon and other outlets than most of the novels with articles on Wikipedia. The above editors, do not apply a fair standard across the board and go after novels with far less media discussion. Assist News is a global press wire service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.48.100 (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Respectfully, the above reference to item 5 is cited in a misleading way and out of context. Item 5 is called item 5 because it is the fifth in a series of digits, any one of which gives a book notability. Rossi's work has to only fulfill ONE of those five points, not all five and is not required to fulfill number five specifically. Stick Man is the most recent component of a series of several works of allegorical art by Rossi portraying his deconversion from fundamentalism which have received mainstream media attention and have been discussed in schools and include his two films and play about Aimee Semple McPherson, his stage version of Elmer Gantry, and his film Quest For Truth. A perusal of the postings of the above editors will show they have not proposed deletion of other novels with less notability. The bias of the above users voting for delete reflects an uneven and arbitrary history. Mr. Rossi and his work has been unfairly defamed and suggested for deletion, sometimes by former disgruntled followers and sometimes by a few who have an opinion against his work. To delete this article would reveal a clear inconsistency because in the novel's categories, the vast majority of similar novels with Wikipedia articles do not have the same campaign for deletion mounted against them. A Google search of "Stick Man Richard Rossi" yielded 380,000 results. In the past, similar articles considered for deletion were kept for meeting a minimum requirement of only two Google hits. To yield to this campaign, allows a few uneven posters to game the Wikipedia system unfairly. This article should be kept and simply cleaned up in terms of dead links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.25 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC) — 64.183.42.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - for the record, a Google search on the term "Stick Man Richard Rossi" only yields about 3,130 results, which then boils down to less than 50 unique returns. If you're going to quote statistics, especially easily checkable ones, you should try to actually present the true results. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Mr. Rossi and Stick Man succeeds in meeting at least four of the five points, when only one is necessary to keep the article.  This begs the question as to objectivity when those proposing deletion single out Rossi and ignore many novel articles with less support.  Here's a small sampling of the voluminous internet support for Stick Man's meeting criteria:  Item 1 - Stick Man has been featured in news articles and reviews, see the following links: [1] [2][3] [4] Item 3 - Stick Man has been an important part of two religious movements. The deconversion of former fundamentalists, see this link as an example [5] and Christian universalism, see this link [6]     Item #4 - Stick Man is on the reading list for high school and college study, see these two links [7]
And lastly, Item 5 is the author's notability which is clear from the amount of media citations and references on the main article about Richard Rossi. Also, I respectfully request this reply not be deleted. The biased campaign to delete Stick Man by a few lacks neutrality.  Efforts to address the concerns regarding the article, and/or clean up the article of dead links have been sabotaged in the past by those seeking deletion of the article. I vote to Keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.202.210 (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC) — 76.79.202.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Reply - Let's look at the 5 criteria for books:
    1. Significant coverage: Blogs don't count. Self-published material doesn't count. Coverage needs to come from reliable sources. None of the sources put forward are reliable sources.
    2. Major literary award: It hasn't won any major literary award.
    3. Signficant contribution to a religious movement: The book is a novel, and has no demonstrated significant contribution to a religious movement. And your links provide no such evidence.
    4. Book is the subject of instruction in schools: Not demonstrated in any reliable sources. The source you provide is a single blog where the poster recommends it be on a school reading list. There is no evidence it is actually on any school reading list, and in any case, being on a reading list is different from being the subject of study.
    5. Historic signifcance of the author: Richard Rossi is not an historically significant writer. If he were, I would expect to see literary scholarship devoted to discussing his body of work. -- Whpq (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although Mike Wazowski's information on Stick Man and it's notability is flawed, even if the information he cites above is accurate, 3,130 Google results for Stick Man and 50 unique returns far exceeds most novels with Wikipedia articles in notability. By his concession of these underestimated numbers, there are still plenty of sources supporting Stick Man. Also, additionally supporting the notability of the novel's author, Richard Rossi's IMDB page lists over 20 credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.202.210 (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still apparently don't understand the concept that notability is not inherited - Rossi could have a thousand credits on the IMDB (as it is, most of them are uncredited or unnamed non-notable characters), it has no bearing on this article about the book. Also you're throwing around ideas about notability and other articles without offering any proof. There are NOT plenty of independent reliable sources demonstrating any notability for this book, no matter how much you wish otherwise. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mike Wazowski's misrepresentations continue, this not only defames Rossi and his work, but the Billy Crystal character named Mike Wazowski. Concerning Mr. Rossi's 24 Film/TV Acting credits, the following 12 are named characters, and in some cases leads: Birddog in Baseball's Last Hero, Ray Clark in Suing the Devil, Rich Stevens in Live Fast Die Young, David Hutton in Aimee Semple McPherson, Gavin in Judy, Officer Miles in Close to Home, Allen in Gilmore Girls, Jake in JAG, Officer Emerson in Pacific Blue, Larry in Jesus 2000, Attorney Cohen in The Practice, The Troubadour in Live At Graffitti's. (Source Richard Rossi's IMDB page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.202.210 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC) — 76.79.202.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - Ad hominem attacks do nothing to advance your cause. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This book has received zero news coverage according to Google News Archive. [8] Google finds only self-referential sources. The book is self-published, [9] and self-published books are very rarely found to be notable. This book fails WP:BOOK in every way. While the author may be notable, the book is not, and the book is what we are discussing here. The chorus of single-purpose ISP accounts in this thread are not succeeding in making the book any more notable. --MelanieN (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OpenAVS

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

I cannot see significant coverage in reliable sources as required by the Notability guideline. Furthermore, the article is mostly unsourced; the sources cover either AVS, not OpenAVS (please note the difference, while AVS is the compression standard, OpenAVS is just one of the software products that implement the standard), or, if they cover OpenAVS, they're only web forums, and web forums are generally not reliable sources.—J. M. (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources about this particular software implementation of AVS. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not finding any reliable source coverage either. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As above, doesn't meet notability guideline, lacks coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Web discussion board linked in the article is not sufficient. Dialectric (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a blatant hoax (criterion G3). Dabomb87 (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jahdaajean language

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

I have found no traces of neither the referenced Jahdaajeami island, nor of the Jahdaajean language. Possible hoax? — Zhernovoi (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - Blatant hoax article—there is no such "small island", which apparently has millions of inhabitants. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatant hoax. Has been tagged for CSD G3 - frankieMR (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Drubner

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

No evidence this individual meets WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. GiantSnowman 20:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Could not find significant coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources. A Google News search did turn up this interview in Chicago, but it's posted in a blog section. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, insufficiently notable subject. —C.Fred (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no assertion of notability in the article, and on a quick search of the interwebs nothing out there that could be cited to make such an assertion. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 18:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the Chicago Magazine interview is the only item of significance. Not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bruggink

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

Questionable notablity. Mentions in the media related to a single event, hunting for Osama bin Laden in the weeks prior to his death. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Kthapelo (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete zero notability from what I can see, lots of people failed to find OBL none of them are notable either.MilborneOne (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it's true that the article focuses on his hunt of Osam bin Laden this is not a clear reason for deletion. The guidelines state that it "may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual" (emphasis added). Meanwhile the General Notability Guideline only states that the article must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" for it to have notability. There are ample resources showing significant coverage in reliable sources, including articles by both the Huffington Post, and LA Weekly.Kthapelo (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." WP:BLP1E#Subjects notable only for one event -- Avanu (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Threeafterthree (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable for anything. Not sure why he even got any coverage. I guess the news will cover almost anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep He is featured in a few media pieces; anyone reading one should be able to consult wikipedia to find more info. Further, he is an example of a particular phenomenon, i.e. individuals hunting bin Laden, which ought to be represented in wikipedia. Gzuckier (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable for anything and delete the cat:bin laden hunters if Gzuckier ever creates it. Off2riorob (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bbb23, WP:NOTNEWS. I don't see how this person comes anywhere near to meeting WP:BLP and WP:GNG. Passing references in three unreliable blogs, the only citations, comes nowhere to significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Now if he gets around to making a NYT Bestseller out of it and going on speaking tours like Aron Ralston, maybe, but as it is he is not notable. Somedaypilot (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was REDIRECT. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 03:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navin Party

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

Non-notable miscellanea ("art project") not covered by A7. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Navin Rawanchaikul, the conceiver of this "invented political caucus". I withdraw my proposal to merge since this art project differs from the political party The NY Times article mentions. Goodvac (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC) modified 18:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. The NY Times link above doesn't work for me, but even if it is a good source, it's only one; and the proposal to 'merge' is not very helpful without saying where, exactly, this content should be merged to. Robofish (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Goodvac.--v/r - TP 02:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Needlers

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

SNL sketch that doesn't meet notability guidelines. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 17:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Trivial, at best. No indication of notability. Not every SNL sketch that is mounted more than once necessitates an article (in fact, subjectively speaking, some recurring SNL sketches should never have occurred once, let alone multiple times). Nothing indicates that this is little more than a forgettable, if not forgotten, bit that did not even create a ripple in pop-culture.Agent 86 (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG.--v/r - TP 02:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quartetos

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

Notability not asserted nor established. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 17:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to admin It has been two weeks and no one has objected to deleting. This is longer than a PROD. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure that the closing admin knows that AfD discussions with no consensus default to "keep". Is that what you are saying should happen here rather than relisting? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is this review, which seems to go some way towards establishing notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Telectu or delete as proposed. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn LibStar (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Care Foundation for Children with Disabilities

Christian Care Foundation for Children with Disabilities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG, in 25 years of existence, all it gets is a mere 4 gnews hits [10]. the first hit sounds indepth from the title but merely mentions someone donating their prize money to this organisation. LibStar (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a Thai organisation, and untangling what it does, who it is linked with, and where to find references takes a bit of doing. I recommend starting with their 2009 Annual Report to give leads. That got me to this BBC World Service report in which a reporter had interviewed people supported by CCD and mentions their work. There is an old (1999) piece in the Bankok Times. Their work is referred to on p13 of a UNESCO publication from 2006, and a WHO conference included a visit to a project of theirs. There are many refernces in blogs etc. Given that it is a Thai body and much coverage is probably not in English, it seems certain that there is enough to establish notability. One complication in searching is that although established by Christian Outreach for Relief & Development there is no current active link with them so far as I can tell, and they are supported by For Life Thailand in the UK and by groups in the USA and Australia. More recent mentions of the organisation are as CCD rather than the full name. The article needs work, but not deletion. --AJHingston (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was MERGE. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 03:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ImPlicitNgine

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

Merge with Roblox, it's the only game that uses this engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalfEnergy (talk • contribs) 10:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. It doesn't seem used in any other games. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom, although it should be noted that merger discussions should take place at the target article's talk page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faithful Friend Yellow Lab T Shirt

Faithful Friend Yellow Lab T Shirt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable t-shirt. It got some minor coverage in the USA Today and another source (see article) but nowhere sufficient to justify its own article. SoWhy 09:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as spam. Without the clear promotional intent in the article, my recommendation would have been 'weak delete' on the basis of notability - there are two mentions in the press but neither article is significant in coverage. However, the article creator (and reported sock's) repeated placing of promotional text (a copyvio of a press release, eg [11]) warrant speedy deletion as spam. Note that the article has also been created as Faithful Friend Yellow Lab T-Shirt, Faithful Friend Yellow Lab and 'Faithful Friend Yellow Lab (all deleted; the first two deleted as spam and salted). RichardOSmith (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as purely promotional material. Also, I searched for sources using the links at the top and found nothing. If any more sources are found I may reconsider my position. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 18:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The creator's intentions are irrelevent when assessing whether the article is promotional. The current revision does not read like spam. However, the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources (the USA Today article is merely trivial coverage) does not warrant an article for this T-shirt. Goodvac (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The creator and first sock have been blocked but further new accounts and IPs have put the copyvio / spam back again twice more since you made your comment. I do not intend to edit war with them, so rather than remove it again I have instead tagged the article for speedy deletion this time. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This page is pretty much a copyright vio. The copyright status is confirmed too. G12 it. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 18:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Elysian Fields

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

speedily renominating. fails WP:NALBUMS. media coverage merely confirms existence of this album. [12]. album never charted and not really reviewed in major press. LibStar (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Hugh Cornwell, cannot find coverage of the album in reliable source to justify having a seperate article. I can't figure out if this courts as a reliable source but it probably isn't. Interestingly, WP:NALBUMS doesn't seem too restrictive. I quote, "In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." (emphasis mine). I don't know if this is deliberate or just a poor choice of wording. doomgaze (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't punch holes in otherwise comprehensive discographies of notable recording artists. All his other albums have individual pages. As WP:OSE recommends, In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items. One of the functions of an encyclopedia, after all, is to be encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
could you please directly address how this meets WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. you've just presented a WP:UNENCYC argument. LibStar (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the point that the argument I advance has been recognized as valid by consensus in other AFDs, as well as being drawn from an essay that enjoys significant support from the community, I'll also note that the GNG is, of course, a guideline; that guidelines are to be applied with "common sense" and are subject to "occasional exceptions"; keeping discographies and similar sets of articles complete is both supported by common sense and one of the "common exceptions" supported by community practice. And it's very hard to understand why addressing the standard functions of an encyclopedia is an "unencyclopedic" argument. It might be wrong in this case (although that would surprise me greatly), but it's clearly a legitimate argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cornwell is clearly notable in his own right, and as a musician rather than a cricket fan. Therefore his musical output needs to be discussed, whether in a single discography or in the album-by-album format that is currently used. It isn't entirely clear that BEF fails WP:NALBUMS, and the argument from WP:OSE presented above is perfectly valid. Deleting this simply means, as has already been pointed out, that there will be a hole that needs to be filled. A single discography might well be more appropriate, but unless or until someone volunteers to create it, it would be far better to hold onto this page. BlueThird (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
so you say this fails WP:NALABUMS... then it needs to meet WP:GNG. please show evidence of significant non trivial coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "It isn't entirely clear that BEF fails WP:NALBUMS" isn't at all the same as saying "this fails WP:NALABUMS". In any case, WP:OSE, accurately quoted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, allows for valid exceptions in instances such as this, so neither criteria has to be met. This article can stay because it's part of a related group of pages. It should stay because deleting it would create significant extra work in restoring the breadth of coverage on the wider subject, Hugh Cornwell. BlueThird (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"would create significant extra work in restoring the breadth of coverage on the wider subject" is not a reason for keeping, it must pass a notability guideline. also see WP:PLENTY. no sources have been found by any keep voters to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It might not be strictly appropriate to bundle this with other Cornwell albums that are being considered for deletion, but they should surely be considered together and within the wider context of Cornwell's notability. There's also an AfD for Wired (aka First Bus To Babylon). BlueThird (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage/album reviews found in The Age [13] and at musicOMH [14]. That appears to be enough to satisfy WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow Talk 01:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I eat my words. Gongshows sources show that the album satisfies WP:GNG now. doomgaze (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samastha Nair Samajam

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

The subject fails the notability requirements of WP:ORG. A Google search of the subject gave me no non-self-published results other than a couple articles discussing that the group would not be backing the candidate in an election, as well as a list of upcoming events, one of which, the subject was hosting. All of the the articles that I did find that even mentioned the group were at least 3 years old, and I could find nothing recently indicated any notability. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable org with no independent indepth coverage--Sodabottle (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One-Eyed Doll

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

Fails notability requirements of WP:BAND and WP:GNG. A Google search showed no secondary sources that note notability other than winning a minor award. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has won several awards which are not minor, albeit regional; Austin is quite the seed bed that way. Detailed citations shall follow; be patient for a short while. kencf0618 (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: AFDs run five days, so if you are able to add appropriate citations to reliable third-party sources in the next few days the article won't be deleted. Keep in mind, though, that we can't keep articles based on the possibility that these citations will exist one day in the future when the band becomes notable. They have to be notable now. --NellieBly (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're out there, I just have to track them down. kencf0618 (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that there are sufficient citations now to cross the notability threshold. kencf0618 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite the avalanche of sources, if one actually inspects the sources, we have a lot of unreliable sources, and the ones that are reliable do not provide significant coverage about One-eyed Doll. -- Whpq (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree that there are a lot of unreliable sources —of course we're going to have a lot of blogs given the nature of the subject, and then again the SXSW Austin Music Awards are no minor event. One-Eyed Doll isn't a one-off, it's a significant up-and-coming punk band, so at this stage of their career path what would count as significant coverage? A citation in Rolling Stone? kencf0618 (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - You said it yourself -- "up and coming". When they arrive, then would be a good time for an article. I don't see that as having happened yet. -- Whpq (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply We'll have to agree to disagree, then, because in my estimation they are notable now. Not to put too fine a point on it, OED has crossed Wikipedia's threshold of notability, which is why I wrote the article in the first place, avalanche of music press citations and all. kencf0618 (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - No worries. To a degree, the amount and type of coverage that's needed to establish notability is subjective and we'll never have all editors agree on everything. -- Whpq (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Just so. Sometimes you throw a thick slab of meat onto Wikipedia knowing full well why and how it'll be processed. It's all good. kencf0618 (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This band is more than up and coming they have arrived, National Television appearances, International Magazine features, a soon to be released 8th album with a national release of CDs and Shirts in every mall in America, in a store I am not allowed to name, but im sure you can guess, is not something to scoff at. You cant call Americas Got Talent up-and-coming, nor Revolver Magazine. And if a Band cant get a WIKI page after winning SXSW three years in a row and in multiple categories, then what exactly does it take??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghm327 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just want to clarify that i am not in the band. I am a concerned friend of the band, and a store owner that carries the bands music and merchandise. And would like to point out the listing for the band "Giant Squid". Im sure comparing one band to another is not something the people doing verifications of WIKI pages would want to hear, but its completely relevant for this reason; Jason Sewell and Kimberly Freeman were both members of Giant Squid, or more specifically, Scott Sutton was in One-Eyed Doll and Jason Sewell was in Giant Squid. Now take note of the band Giant Squid, despite being on WIKI, Giant Squid is not even half as accomplished as the band One-Eyed Doll. [I suspect that being on a Label, no matter how small, is the major force in judging Bands for WIKI inclusion, this should not be so, especially in the 'Age of Direct Communication' we live in currently. Band such as NIN and Radiohead are going "off-label" and meeting resounding success with 'Pay-What-You-Want' internet download distribution models. Labels are no longer key to a bands fame or notability. Look at McChris!] So please consider this band in all seriousness. Kimberly Freeman is one of the hardest working musicians alive today, she exhibits a non-stop stream of talent and has the recognition of not only her enormous international fanbase, but of her peers in music. For instance, Martin Atkins of PigFace and owner of Invisible Records has recorded drum parts on her new One-Eyed Doll album set to release this year. Thank you. comment added by Ghm327
  • Keep - Note that most of the sources in the article as it stands today (5/26) are trivial or unreliable, and those that are reliable mostly mention this band only in passing. However, close inspection of the newspaper articles, especially from Austin Chronicle, reveals that the band really has won awards at SXSW, which gets them past criterion #9 of the band notability guideline. You could also make a case for #5 and #7 in that same guideline. The article needs to be cleaned up and probably reduced, but the band has achieved basic notability. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply -Just so. I'm counting on the genius of the Wikipedia process, and fully expect the article to be culled and to evolve. I can't see the forest for the trees, at least initially, but that said I'm quite happy to see the article mature. You have to start somewhere, and now we have begun. kencf0618 (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something vaguely between Delete and Weak Delete. Publicity-hungry local band that's mostly been mentioned, in passing, in several local community newspapers, right alongside Grandma Mabel's chili recipe and the local crochet group's plans for a summer bake sale. "Up and coming" says it best - once they're "up and here", so to speak, is the time for an article. The article seems, at a glance, to be well-referenced, but this is misleading - a closer look at the list shows that the references are mostly primary sources (the band's own website features heavily), blogs, user-generated content-farms, and (of course) YouTube. What's left is a passing blurb in the Austin Chronicle mentioning that the band won an award at SXSW (it would almost be more notable if the band didn't win an award of some sort at SXSW), and a few superficial mentions here and there. As far as I can gather, the "Hottest Chicks in Hard Rock" mention is on a web-only outtakes series, not the actual print magazine itself, and - given the nature of that particular feature - even if it were in the print magazine, would only extend notability to Ms. Freeman as a model, not the band as a musical ensemble. The same goes for her tie-in with AdventureQuest. The only remaining scrape with notability is the brief one-page bio in a Guitar World spinoff which comes across as somewhat of a walled-garden all-inclusive anthology along the lines of "Best Left-Handed Double-Bass Drummers From Mozambique" - if it was Guitar World itself, it might scrape by, but as it is, it's really straining credibility. If for whatever reason this article is kept, it needs to be cleaned up - the tone is entirely ill-suited for an encyclopedia, it reads much more like a press package. Badger Drink (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply As mentioned before this band has achieved a National presence, your comments are a bit inaccurate. Im not trying to disavow your credibility, in fact i welcome your critique as it provides ample opportunity to clarify the facts surrounding this band. Being Featured in Guitar Player and Revolver is no small feat. Both are internationally released and you are wrong if you are actually insinuating that the band was featured in 'Web Only Outtakes' this is completely inaccurate, additional photos of the bands leader Kimberly freeman were featured on one of the mags sites but this was in addition to magazine content. As for 'Several Local Community Newspapers' SXSW happens in Austin Texas, and the Austin Chronicle is the most noteworthy publication covering the Austin Texas Music scene, the fact that they also maintain a blog does not damage the credibility of One-Eyed Doll nor the Austin Chronicle. And just how is a band discredited by being documented and displayed on Youtube by fans all over the country exactly? That should be noted as a clear sign that they have a national presence. Once again i have to bring up the band 'Giant Squid' a very unnoteworthy band that has maintained a WIKI for quite some time now, YouTube results for 'giant squid band' only produce 104 hits, whereas 'one eyed doll' produces 1,400 results, and only 83 of those were uploaded by the band themselves. Their latest video, 'Your a Vampire' having been viewed 85,000+ times! BTW what band page does NOT read like a press package? Also, Press citations are key to WIKI recognition, and there is no such thing as a trivial mention of a band in the press. As far as bands go the slightest mention is a major deal. I would like to bring your attention to the following articles that detail how current internet business models function in the internet age, the old paradigms, of the record industry in particular, are no longer relevant, and therefore the criteria concerning Record Labels [Music Notability Guidelines #5] as well as the Gold Certification [Guideline #3] are outdated guidelines. http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php This article details what i mentioned in previous posts here, concerning bands such as NIN and Radiohead. http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/12/packaged_goods_media_vs_conversational_media_part_one_updated This article details the difference between Business models that rely on old-fashioned Distribution networks and how the Internet helps artists reach fans without the Distribution networks required in the past. Finally, Im sure that the 'Sita Sings the Blues' WIKI page is still running smoothly, and it serves as another example of a successful internet released medium that is certainly not backed by any Hollywood Studio. I know its not a band page but the arguments posed here to delete the OED WIKI could be used to justify removing the Sita Sings the Blues WIKI page, as well as the Mc Chris WIKI page, who also, like One-Eyed Doll, has never been signed to a major label. [BTW Kimberly Freeman herself being a model, which is totally true, she has modeled for Gloomth Clothing, is in no way a detracting element. The opposite im sure] comment added by Ghm327 Ghm327 (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Furthermore, to add to what User: Doomsdayer520 wrote re band notability criteria, OED's work with AQW arguably accounts for #10 in the band notability guideline, assuming that you take gaming to be a major medium nowadays in its own right. YMMV. kencf0618 (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. SXSW has become a big deal, getting covered in some depth, for example by the NYTimes. Success there is a reasonable predictor of music press coverage. In addition, guitarist etc Kimberly Freeman appears to be borderline notable on her own; if we delete this article the band coverage involving her plus the magazine coverage mentioned in this article would probably be enough to demonstrate notability, so we'd be keeping much of this content in that article. Better to have an article on the band, including coverage of its members who aren't notable independent of it, than an article on the most notable member with the rest of the band discussed like an afterthought. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree that the Austin Music Awards are a "major music competition". Inks.LWC (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. SXSW is the largest of the major Music festivals in Austin TX of all of the many Festivals there including LadyFest, Austin City Limits, Old Settlers Music Festival, Austin Family Music Festival, Kerrville Folk Festival, Austin Wine and Music Festival, Austin Fine Arts Festival, Austin Film Festival, Urban Music Festival, Fun Fun Fun Fest, Austin Reggae Festival, Zilker Garden Festival. Austin isnt some insignificant small town, and nor are any of the many things going on there. Besides this isnt a conversation about weather or not the Music Capital of the World or the SXSW event is of note. 184.190.218.169 (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry that was me, I wasnt logged in. GHM327 Ghm327 (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sources have been added, but they are all rather passing mentions, so the jury is still out as concerns notability.  Sandstein  07:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Dzidzornu

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

Does not pass WP:MUSICIAN, let alone the General Notability Guidelines. GHits are all Wikipedia mirrors, passing mentions, or unreliable sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:RS don't care, so neither do we. Chester Markel (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Undoubtedly the article is poorly written, and un-sourced; it needs a complete overhaul. However, he may qualify under notability depending on your interpretation of WP:MUSICBIO #6, as he has appeared on several important albums. Likewise he may qualify under Other #2. This article is no orphan. He has the briefest of mentions under Allmusic. If you check Google news there are several valid references, and a check of Google books gives even more information. (search under Rocky Dijon). 78.26 (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Google books results for "Rocky Dijon"[15] all seem to be one sentence or less about this person. Is there anything more substantial? There's no point in having an article if there's not enough material in reliable sources from which to write it. Using the Google books results as references would only support content of the form "Rocky Dzidzornu performed with group W, at event X, on date Y..." Chester Markel (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - what, are you all crazy? Man does sessions with Stones, Hendrix, Joe Walsh, Nick Drake - he's one of the most significant African session drummers of the sixties, along with Remi, Ginger Johnson and Gaspar Lawal. You don't delete articles on notable musicians because they're badly written! Redheylin (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure you mean WP:NMUSIC ? The subject is notable because;
5 Has released two or more albums
7 Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city;
10 Has performed music for a work of media that is notable
You can understand and verify the first and last, I am sure: RD is credited on the cover of "Let it Bleed" and "Sticky Fingers" and these are supposed to be in the top 10 MOST notable products of rock. And you can also verify he recorded congas for Hendrix, Drake, The Young Rascals, Herbie Hancock, Stevie Wonder, Ginger Baker? And you can find his albums on sale?
But there's more. As Stapleton and May say in African All Stars (Paladin 1989, p 297) " For the past 40 years Britain has had a regular community of African musicians... The rock bands who flourished in the late 1960s nodded briefly in the right direction.. it did at least open the door to the first tentative flowering of a British... African music scene". This is how RD, along with Fela Kuti, Ginger Johnson, Reebop Kwaku Ba, Gaspar Lawal and Remi Kabaka, represent a "notable style". It happens Stapleton and May do not mention RD by name, though they mention the Stones, and you are right that all this is badly represented on the www at present. Look at Music of Africa and it will tell you that Paul Simon was the first to use African musicians! This is a bad state of affairs, because it is not so. To do credit to this matter, of which I have just become aware, I shall have to look for some printed material. Meanwhile, you may verify two other reasons for keeping, and take my word on the third. Redheylin (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does African All Stars specifically discuss him? To even get to the point where we have to consider WP:MUSICIAN, we must first pass the WP:GNG; nothing seems in-depth, which fails the General Notability Guidelines. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he certainly "has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles". I guess you are looking for biographical information? That does exist, but I shall have to look. But are you sure that other notable session musicians like Hal Blaine and Carol Kaye pass this test? Redheylin (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
//"He [Hendrix] had gotten a chance to see Rocki and some other African musicians on the London scene. He found it a pleasure to play rhythms against their polyrhythms. They would totally get outside, into another kind of space that he had seldom been in before. . . . Rocki’s father was a voodoo priest and the chief drummer of a village in Ghana, West Africa. Rocki’s real name was Kwasi Dzidzornu. One of the first things Rocki asked Jimi was where he got that voodoo rhythm from. When Jimi demurred, Rocki went on to explain in his halting English that many of the signature rhythms Jimi played on guitar were very often the same rhythms that his father played in voodoo ceremonies. The way Jimi danced to the rhythms of his playing reminded Rocki of the ceremonial dances to the rhythms his father played to Oxun, the god of thunder and lightning. The ceremony is called voodooshi. As a child in the village, Rocki would carve wooden representatives of the gods. They also represented his ancestors. These were the gods they worshiped. They would jam a lot in Jimi’s house. One time they were jamming and Jimi stopped and asked Rocki point-blank, ‘You communicate with God, do you?’ Rocki said, ‘Yes, I communicate with God’" (David Henderson, ‘Scuse Me While I Kiss the Sky, pages 250, 251)..” //
This Henderson was keen to explore Hendrix' Afro leanings and interviewed people like RD and Ram John Holder - black people JH knew in Britain. SO - bit of bio there for ya. I'd include it, but you know - you'll need to withdraw the point because you are right that things need improving, but it's pointless doing it in a hostile atmosphere. I'm trying to work on Sub-Saharan African music traditions - that's how I came to notice. Redheylin (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kaye at least has this, which is a start. Blaine has Blaine, Hal; David Goggin (1990). Hal Blaine and the Wrecking Crew. Emeryville, CA: MixBooks. cited, which seems to pass WP:GNG with flying colours. Other stuff aside, you are right that Dzidzornu has been a member of more than two notable ensembles... but without any reliable sources with more than a passing mention, he still fails WP:GNG. It is a similar case, though admittedly not the same, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewen Macintosh, where an actor who played a major character in a major show was deleted because there were no sources discussing him the person. On a side note, I applaud you for fighting systematic bias; I've tried to do the same with my Indonesian articles. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Delete per WP:NOTFROMUSA. Right. The man has passed Muso-notability on four counts. I have provided bio information. I have informed you that more is available - significant coverage in reliable sources - and undertaken to add it. I have informed you of the musical significance. That's it. Per the guidelines you keep quoting; " If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate... For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources." I shall be happy to oblige. Redheylin (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how a Canadian is being accused of being US-centric, but no, that's not anywhere near what I meant. Both Blaine and Kaye pass the General Notability Guidelines because they have sources discussing them in depth, while Dzidzornu does not as of yet. Passing mentions are not enough to prove notability, and so far all you have produced are passing mentions. If you can produce a source that is more than just "Rocky Dijon (born Rocky Dzidzornu) played with..." and the band names, then I would be much obliged. However, as I have said above, passing mentions are not enough to pass the GNG. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have produced such a source. I have informed you that "it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found" and therefore that "deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate". No editor has any right to hold another responsible for the provision of citations to forestall a deletion proposal when he can as easily follow wikipedia policy in a way that leads to the improvement of articles and not to wastage of time. Redheylin (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BURDEN regarding the burden of evidence when it comes to sources, and WP:NRVE, which states "... once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." If you have significant coverage in reliable sources, feel free to source. Otherwise, we should let other editors weigh in. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Influential session drummer, passes WP:MUSICBIO per Redheylin's evidence. I added some sources. Searching is laborious because he was known by a variety of names and spellings. (Note, for example, that there are more references under the name "Kwasi Dzidzornu" [16]).--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Rocki" might have more hits. The sources in your GSearch mostly use it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, the ones I looked at were passing mentions... Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caversham Primary School

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

Elementary school, which is not inherently notable and does not seem to pass the general notability guidelines. Has been nominated for deletion before but there was no consensus. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is to test the waters. There are still many others (in the Primary section of that template). Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - it's had a merge hat since March 08 and doesn't appear to have been improved since the previous AfD. I'd argue strongly that top 200 performing school is dubious in terms of GNG unless there is substantial, verifiable coverage regarding it's notability beyond that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, but I don't see the need to merge when a single sentence would be enough. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would probably have just merged it through selective c&p - a redirect isn't a terrible thing to have as it's a reasonable search term probably. But if there aren't sources to show notability I'll change it to delete if necessary Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes the WP:GNG, being documented in detail in independent, reliable sources. I have made a start on improving the article. The claim that no effort had been made to improve the article is therefore obsolete. In any case, that is an argument to avoid. Our editing policy is to improve articles rather than bringing them here. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would only have used that justification in any case to support a merge rather than a delete. Keep working on the sources and you might convince me it needs to be kept - although, to be frank, artsmarks and the like are not enough imo to make the school notable - doing so would open up thousands of stubs. The Times article might be - shame Murdoch has it behind his paywall, but I'll see if I can find a way to get a look at it at some point - assuming it makes reference directly to the school rather than simply in passing. But I can certainly be convinced to go for keep if there are the sources to support it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Times article is now at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Caversham Primary School (2nd nomination). This confirms the school's position as the highest performing primary school in a major borough over 3 years. TerriersFan (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Under what understanding of that policy are you allowed to insert in Wikipedia a full article which is presumably still under copyright? Better to include a link, or to quote the one relevant sentence. Edison (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this school was independently assessed as outstanding, the highest rating for a UK school. Just as we keep Blue Ribbon schools in the US we should keep 'outstanding' schools in the UK. Even if that is not good enough, sufficient sources are available to meet WP:GNG. Yes I know all about WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but we have higher priorities in cleaning out WP from nn or promotional pages than bothering about a clean page on a public body. TerriersFan (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would argue very strongly that outstanding Ofsted status should not be enough in itself to crate notability via the GNG. I can see an argument that there are enough other sources in this case though - I'm currently involved in thinking about the arguments about them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the common outcome of innumerable primary/elementary school AFDs in recent years. What guideline says "we keep every US school (or school anywhere) which gets a "Blue Ribbon" (whatever that is)?" Notability is not the same as excellence. Wikipedia is not a "blue ribbon guide to finding an outstanding school for your child." Wikipedia is not a directory of every elementary school in the world which was in the top x % on its national test result. Getting some particular rating in a given country does not automatically make a primary/elementary school notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. Fails WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is not "Getting some particular rating in a given country"; this is the top performing school every year for over a decade in a substantial region. A public institution that is 'best in class' is clearly notable'. TerriersFan (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment"Well above average merit" does not equal "Notability." There is no such inherent notability provided by WP:ORG, the relevant guideline for schools that are given some "Ofsted" rating. The Ofsted article seems to say in "Current system of inspection" that 9% of schools get an "Outstanding" rating since 2009, but that 19% got an "Outstanding" rating before 2009. This is not a compelling argument for notability, at all. In the US, "Blue ribbon" schools include 5200 recipients, or 3.9% of the 133,000 eligible schools. That also is far, far too low a bar. The US award has been criticized as going typically to schools which have students with wealthy parents. In any event it is not selective enough in either country. It is not the "Top performing one school." WP:ORG requires multiple instances of significant coverage in independent and reliable sources, besides the common outcome of merging elementary and secondary schools. Wikipedia is not a Michelin guide to above average schools. It is specifically not a directory of every organization which got some particular score in its national rating system. Being exceptionally good or exceptionally bad at what an organization is there to do does not gain automatic notability. If it did, the 10% lowest rated schools would also be entitled to automatic notability. Edison (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as clear example of a non-notable primary school. EVERY region, EVERY locality has "one of the best performing schools" in that region or locality. There are good schools and bad schools, I am sure this is a good one — but being a good school doesn't have a free path over the notability bar. There is no historic event which took place at this school, it is not the first representative of a unique pedagogic innovation, it was not attended by a historic figure, it was not the place where a historic figure taught... It is a school, a good school, a non-notable elementary school. There are thousands and thousands of those around the globe. Fortunately, we have a huge body of precedent for dealing with cases like this, so we don't often have to waste time haggling over whether this elementary school or that is "notable" enough on the basis of having won the Borough Prize Certificate of Excellent Status. Repeat after me: Non-notable elementary school = merge; High school or degree-granting institution = keep. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: I would guard against using Ofsted's 'Outstanding' as a reference for notability. Quality, yes, but it is purely a procedural rating as part of the structure of inspections by HM inspectors for state schools. It is not part of an award scheme and is not comparable to the USA's Blue Ribbon. I'm not altogether sure that the Times article lends any suggestion that an oversubscribed locally high performing school is particularly notable, even if the parents took the matter to the High Court - there is a difference in news coverage that confirms notability, and using any news coverage to fullfil Wikipedia criteria for extensive coverage - the item covered is one event. Idem for the trivia in the Reading Post, however sad - all murder victims went to school somewhere. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no rule stating that all primary schools are none-notable, and this one appears to meet WP:GNG (and even WP:ORG if you want to go down that route). Of the seven references listed, two - this and this - contain significant coverage about the school; the second is a national newspaper, so there's evidence of notability outside of a local area too. There are more sources that aren't in the article yet, both at local and national level, and even some book coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Being "Outstanding" is not a legitimate claim to notability. Being the site of a unique pedagogic innovation, the sit of a historic event, having a former teacher of historical importance — these things are legitimate claims to notability for an elementary school. A very firm community consensus has evolved about schools: elementary schools to be merged to generalized articles about their local districts or communities, high schools and degree-granting institutions to be kept per se. One thing we do NOT want to do is start a competition among the hundreds of thousands or millions of elementary schools to "make" Wikipedia by virtue of bureaucratic awards. There are good schools and bad schools — Wikipedia is not a compendium of "good" schools. It is an encyclopedia, the articles in which should be encyclopedia-worthy. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything you say is true, but none of it addresses the fact that this school clearly meets WP:GNG, the definition of Wikipedia notability. We can't discriminate against organisations which meet every relevant guideline on the grounds that we don't like the reasons why they've received significant coverage. And doesn't this have a legitimate claim to be a historic event? It certainly set an important precedent - few other councils have attempted to go down the same route. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm genuinely not sure it does though. The court case is more relevant to Reading Borough Council in many ways - they're the main story, the school is pretty incidental. The book you link to above is no more than a passing reference - someone who happened to be at the school, no more that that - that's certainly not enough to meet the GNG. The local paper coverage is, in the main, standard primary school paper coverage - if that's GNG then every primary school in the country is. Which brings us back to the court case which, it seems to me, to be what this AfD rests on. Is that enough direct coverage of the school? Maybe it is - in which case someone needs to make sure the article is a wee bit more balanced. I would still favour merge given the one event nature of the notability, but I can understand why people might see this otherwise. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is the local coverage really standard? The same paper gives no such level of coverage to Redlands Primary School [17], so the assertion that every primary school receives it is definitely wrong. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Trust me, primary schools can get virtually anything printed if they put enough press releases in! One my kids go to has had articles in about a milestone being repainted in the village, a new roof and getting given some seeds and gardening kit - all of it directly addressing the school in reliable, third party secondary sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The outstanding rating on its own does not provide a reason to keep the article, although it is still something to be proud of. Under the current (tougher) Ofsted inspection regime instituted in Autumn 2009, approximately 9% of schools gain an outstanding rating. At the time of this school's inspection in February 2009 the bar was set much lower so the percentage of outstanding schools was higher. However, the coverage of the high court challenge (which should be expanded if the article is kept) plus the influence it had on Kelly Southerton make it notable enough to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 08:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This means that because there is no agreement about whether the subject is notable enough for an article or not, the default outcome is to keep the article.  Sandstein  07:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marisol Deluna

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

No indication of importance WP:A7. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:BIO. Msnicki (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article was recently slashed to almost nothing. Certainly, much of it read like a puff piece, but I have no comment on whether the amount of slashing was justified. In any event, despite the poorly written article, I believe she is sufficiently notable as a fashion designer to keep the article (and hopefully improve it). I did a cursory search, and here are third-party sources about her contributions: first, second, and third (PDF). There are probably others if I look longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first and third links you gave are to promotional material that cannot be taken as independent. The second link is to a short article in a small circulation local paper. To the extent the subject is not just an individual, but also a brand name, I think WP:CORPDEPTH provides useful guidance: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." I think it takes more than has been offered to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that two of the links are partly promotional. However, they provide some verification of Deluna's work and the recognition of her work. I also agree that the San Antonio link is for a local paper, but I don't think your guideline quote adds much to what we have to do to satisfy notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the important part: "the subject of significant coverage" (emphasis added.) I think this asks that the bar be a little higher when commercial interests are involved. Another avenue of establishing notability might be WP:CREATIVE, e.g., if her works were now part of museum collection, but I don't think we have that, either. Msnicki (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Apparently, the focus of Deluna's work is for non-profits, but I confess I'm having trouble finding third-party online sources that report on her work. I did find one more, although not exactly a mainstream magazine, here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to discard this last SPS.Racconish Tk 15:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although the article was shortened considerably, several editors have been unable to find secondary sources, citations, mentions, or other unbiased, non-promotional articles about the subject that verify any of the claims made in the original piece. The key issue is the subject not having significant coverageItalic text from outside sources and being too much opinion rather than fact. The original article was very lond and detailed had way too much linkining, name-dropping, unverifiable claims, and was all for a person who is not a household name. I have searched high and low for citations and the bulk of the information available on the subject is either self-promotional or of the "socialite" variety. Attending galas is hardly an adequate reason for a WP article in my opinion. I don't believe she meets the notability requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa1232011 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 20 May 2011
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First of all, the nominator misunderstand AfD, A7, or both, and didn't read the article. To say that there is no claim of importance in this article is simply to say that one hasn't read it--of course there are claims to notability.

    Second, the Austin American Statesman devoted an entire article to her (cited in the article, but not available online). I have it here through ProQuest and will cite you the first paragraph: "For most of the fashion industry, Sept. 11 was crippling, driving sales down, and making luxurious fashion seem frivolous. But for 35- year-old San Antonio native Marisol Deluna, the infamous date was a motivator. Deluna was living in downtown Manhattan at the time of the World Trade Center attacks and lost her best friend, Sara Manley, when one of the hijacked planes crashed into Manley's 92nd- floor office. Shortly thereafter, Deluna returned to her parents' Alamo Heights home for a month." Also, there this, The New York Times reporting on the woman's marriage. That's pretty much like an obituary--if the Times writes you up when you are married or dead, you are notable. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT has an on-line form for submitting wedding announcements. They certainly don't send a reporter out to do any fact-checking. This makes these things like a verbatim reporting of a press release (see WP:CORPDEPTH) and not useful for establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually as seen in the article How to Submit a Wedding Announcement, "Submissions are rewritten, fact-checked and edited to Times standards." So they are, in fact, vetted for accuracy. Also, you have to provide reasoning for what makes you notable to be included in the Times' announcements. Alteran1 (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC) — Alteran1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
After going through the NYT archives, this may well be correct. I note that the online article is listed under "Style", whereas the archives list them under "Wedding and Engagements." You live and learn. Drmies (talk)
I'd venture to say that NYT's procedures have changed since Ms. Deluna was married. When I was growing up, generally speaking it was a BIG DEAL to get a wedding announcement in the TImes and there was definitely fact checking and editing involved. Additionally, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Weddings and Engagements section contained within the Style section (or at least was at that time?)--Mr. Brown (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many mentions constitute "significant coverage"? After all this debate and there are less than three articles as proof of Deluna's notability? Aa1232011 (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems the gutting of this article was initiated by Aa1232011 (talk) on May 19th, and he/she provided no reasoning for why they removed large swaths of content from this article. I'm concerned that their motivations are personal, such that of a personal enemy of Marisol Deluna, and her wikipedia article has unjustifiably become a target because of it. Also, all of Aa1232011 (talk • contribs) contributions are confined entirely to articles concerning Marisol Deluna, adding further evidence to this being a personal vendetta. Alteran1 (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC) — Alteran1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
But you only have 35 edits yourself. And 24 of them are on the subject of this one individual. Glass houses and all that. Let's talk about reliable sources, please, not each other. Msnicki (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be concerned of a possible personal vandetta too, maybe not necessarily by Aa1232011, but by some of the folks editing this page. Wasn't there an edit recently stating that she was from "Cementville"? I spent some time in that part of Texas growing up, and that's not exactly a nice term to say about somebody from her section of San Antonio, which to me suggests somebody has an issue with the article's subject. --Mr. Brown (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd reply here because I'm having my motives questioned and it's not part of the discussion. First, I don't know Mrs. Deluna personally and no amount of 'vendetta' will get so many other editors on WP to delete or edit sections of someone's bio if it were well sourced and could be independently ve rified. I am new to WP editing and French living in the U.S. I found Mrs. Deluna's article by following a link in the 'List of famous French people' WP article. When I got to Deluna's bio, I read she is in fact American born and since there was no mention of her having been naturalized as a French citizen, I proceeded to delete her from that list. Then I followed some of MANY links on her page and found another mention of her in the list of 'notable Argentinian people'. Hmmmmm. Then in another list of 'Notable Spanish people' and so on. Long story short, my curiousity was piqued and the more links on her page I followed, the more I suspected something fishy. If someone would like to visit my editing history and verify this and my other deletions you are welcome to do so. You will notice I edited only when there was no citation, independent verification from an outside source, where her name was inserted into other articles in short one sentence sections devoted entirely to her, etc. I think a good way to end this discussion would be to follow Wikipedia's standards of finding and citing independent sources of her achievements and claims. Even now, the article mentions some of the Bush's family wearing her designs and again, no outside citation where this can be verified. No need for conspiracy theories. Just follow the rules. Apologies if I'm doing something incorrectly on here, still learning the ropes.Aa1232011 (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right and I have found myself some undue inclusions of Marisol Deluna in other articles. But these problems are surmountable. Concerning the Bush ties, some sources are mentioned here, but I do not have the means to check them. Can you Drmies?Racconish Tk 15:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A cursory search for Marisol Deluna shows that she is indeed a notable individual and this is a completely improper use of AfD A7. This article shouldn't have been nominated for a speedy deletion, which is more appropriately reserved for something like "Joe Somebody" of Wichita, Kansas creating a page for himself about his bowling record. I would say she's an individual who's notable in the industry but because of what she does, there are few "wikipedia worthy" sources available. However, if I remember my policies correctly, that in of itself does not make the article any less notable or any more "deletable". --Mr. Brown (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article describes a young woman who designs scarves and ties and markets them through non-profit fund-raising activities. A few of her scarves and ties have been worn by some famous people. She graduated high school, got married and lost a friend on 9-11. Okay, I wish her good luck, but so what? Couldn't this describe (with variations) the lives of a lot of young people who go into fashion (or start out in any other career)? None of this is a reason for an article; absent notability (and directory listings and minor mentions don't do it for me) it is a reason for WP:A7. Msnicki (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She's a little more notable than that, and as I stated & other users have pointed out, a cursory search shows that's she's a little more "famous" (for lack of a better word) than that, and this article showed that before it was gutted. Granted, I'll fully admit that the article was somewhat self-promotional, but there were plenty of materials which showed her notability & importance in the industry
For example, I doubt that many fashion designers "just getting their start" get a reference on General Hospital (which, on an aside, I don't understand why this was removed from the article. Such pop culture references would be appropriate, and are prominently featured, in other articles). Hyundai featured her in their Adelante campaign with other prominent hispanic Americans and designers. While somebody earlier in this discussion linked to the same Hyundai campaign, you discounted it as being "promotional" in nature and non important... I'm going to have to call B.S. on that. It is promotional, for Hyundai, not Ms. Deluna. Her inclusion in that material no doubt shows some degree of importance -- enough so much A7 wouldn't be an appropriate tag for this article and it shouldn't have been nominated for any type of speedy deletion.
As for her wedding announcement, as I stated elsewhere in this discussion, the New York Times didn't have an online submission process for wedding announcements in 1999, as far as I know. If you wanted to be featured in a wedding announcement, you had to have some prominence in society and there was definitely a process involved. Given those facts, I'd say that her inclusion there shows some degree of importance that, when given the totality of the circumstances would qualify her for inclusion on Wikipedia.
Finally, I'd state that we should look for sources that indicate her ties and scarves have been used by prominent people, such as the Bushes and Hillary Clinton. I believe somebody has already found something indicating that Mr. and Mrs. Bush have donned her fashions, although that source is indeed from a store (not Ms. Deluna's) rather than an article. Additionally, I believe she has appeared before Queen Elizabeth and presented her work to the Queen -- not exactly, as you would put it, a fashion designer "just getting her start." --Mr. Brown (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I'm having is with all thee claims that still remain unverified and are being presented here as reasons for a keep is that when combined, all the "proof" of her fame or notority is still very little and sometimes years apart. This tells me there hasn't been substantial or meaningful interest in either her work or personality from enough independent sources for a consistent amount of time. Maybe she met the queen, maybe not. You offer no outside citations for this claim; but when you take into account all the people who get to meet the queen and gift her items during her non-stop world tours it becomes a little trivial. Also, I know from experience working in showbiz that all that is required in order to get written into a show or having a walk-on roll in a series is either a savvy PR person or personal "connections" with a producer or writer. There needs to be more non-promotional independet coverage of an individual to have a WP article IMO.208.54.86.207 (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The article in La Prensa and the references in 2 books, Business and The Entrepreneur's Ressource, are valid secondary sources. Granted La Prensa is a local newspaper but it seems to me, based on this, it meets usual verifiability standards, at least in terms of editorial oversight and fact-checking. So does the Austin Chronicle. Notability is clearly established (keep), though not huge (weak). Msnicki, I shared your irritation on the promo, but it is now trimmed off and we have to beware of WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Also, WP:A7 applies only in the absence of reliable secondary sources, hence not here.Racconish Tk 06:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the thing: I don't think the sources are there. The Small Business Sourcebook: The Entrepreneur's Resource is a directory listing. It's essentially self-published information, indiscriminately collected and published, completely useless for establishing notability. Business is a 667-page introductory text on business management that was written in 2005. The citation is deceptive. If you look carefully, you'll see that it's not being used because there's anything in there about this designer (how would that even be plausible?) but to document (for those who weren't sure) that there's a Garment District in Manhattan. Msnicki (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pet peeve: Citations without quotes that make it difficult for others to figure out the usage, especially when the actual source may not be online for inspection. Msnicki (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right for the Small Business Sourcebook: The Entrepreneur's Resource, but you may be wrong too. Any guide is to some extent a directory. The tone and content of the quote lead me to believe there is sufficient fact-checking and the claim Mrs Deluna does charity seems to me sufficiently backed by such source. As for the other book, I did not get your point. In any case, this is a matter of minor notability and minor sources, but I think the issue is to make sure there is no undue claim endorsed by WP, nothing more. Actually, I often looked at this article and considered proposing its deletion, but decided eventually not to do so, for the reasons above, but rather to clean it. And I share the annoyance about the lack of quote. Go ahead and ask! This is what {{full}} is for;)Racconish Tk 15:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I can partly chime in: the article definitely was in terrible shape (before Racconish went to work). The sources are relatively slim, no doubt about it--and I'd hate to write a biography with such meager sources. I share some of Msnicki's frustrations re: editing and citing, absolutely. But these are judgment calls, and if we fall on different sides of the divide, we'll just have to live with it. If this gets deleted, I won't shed many tears (I'm not a scarf wo/man myself). Still, I want to note that not all arguments for deletion are valid (e.g., lack of claim to notability), and that mine and others' argument for keeping is hardly as strong as we would want, I think. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Drmies's usual cogent and fair-minded analysis. Essentially, it's a close call, and in my view, that can't establish a consensus for deletion. To the extent it matters, I'd probably change my vote from Keep to coincide with Racconish's Weak Keep.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Racconish re: the Business citation, notice that the sentence in question reads, "In 1989, after her college graduation,[5] she started working as an employee in the Garment District, Manhattan.[6]" Citation 5 is to the "Designing Woman" article; citation 6 is to the Business introductory text; note also that it's a reference to page XI in that text. I hope this helps. Msnicki (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are right. Based on the sole 2 newspaper articles, and the possibility there are more, as suggested by the tie link, I would hold to my - hesitant - vote. Racconish Tk 17:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't think the Business citation establishes anything because the sentence it supports doesn't establish notability, just a little background about her beginnings. The sentences that matter are the ones supposedly supported by the Small Business Sourcebook: "Deluna has created designs for various municipalities, educational institutions, fraternal and social organizations. She donated a part of these proceeds to fund-raising projects." If that cite doesn't support the sentences (what's at page 333?), then the sentences should be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the Small Business Sourcebook is a directory of self-reported information. You can look at some random sample pages here; it's like the Yellow Pages without the display ads. If you'd like to submit your own information, you can do it here. Msnicki (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful, thanks, supports your position.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sporadic mentions in regional or promotional material, social outings, a NYT wedding announcement from 1999, and footnotes that can't be verified at this moment are not enough for an article. I did an extensive search in fashion industry journals, trade magazines, events (fashion week guests, designers, celebrities etc), I even tried to find a reputable institution that carries her line or has it as part of their collection and came back emty handed. There just hasn't been a important event, contribution, or mention of her anywhere or substantially to merit a keep. We are talking a handful of mentions over at least a 20 year or longer career. If what's been presented as proof of notoriety were enough for a bio on WP, there would be thousands of new additions everyday of people no one is heard of. 208.54.86.207 (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. We've got a couple local interest stories and that's it. In light of the commercial aspect, I simply don't see this as meeting either the letter or the spirit of the significant coverage described in WP:CORPDEPTH. Msnicki (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does WP:CORPDEPTH even apply? Sure, Ms. Deluna has a business, but I believe WP:CREATIVE would be more applicable, in which case you're entire point isn't valid. Or maybe not, I don't know. I just know that the standard is pretty low and we should err on the side of caution when it comes to deleting an article. --Mr. Brown (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned earlier, WP:CREATIVE would indeed be another way of establishing notability in lieu of sources. But WP:CREATIVE considers critical reviews of her works or evidence that her work is now part of a museum collection, stuff like that, none of which we have here. The reason WP:CORPDEPTH applies is because her name is also her commercial brand and pretty obviously the whole reason for the article. Msnicki (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CREATIVE isn't only about museums. For example, you could argue that her creation of designs for non-profits, etc. (if that can be supported) is a "significant new concept". Of course, I don't know how "new" it is. It may be a stretch, but several of us agree that, if kept, it's a weak keep.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call it WAY more than a stretch. Msnicki (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess capitalizing "way" is a way of stretching "stretch". Do you remember Stretch, Archie Bunker's friend?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to take the time to point out that this article is nominated for deletion under A7 - No indication of importance. The criterion of A7 specifically states "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." If you read the footnote attached to that statement, "It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article falls below the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied." (emphasis mine). With all of that in mind, speedy deletion is not appropriate for this article. I would also say that's it's not a candidate for the normal deletion process, as notability can possibly be established. --Mr. Brown (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The effective word is *CREDIBLE*. As previously mentioned, the article describes someone being born, going to school, starting a business, gifting her designs to people who are gifted things all the time, and getting married. Is it credible that such an alleged important individual has gone unnoticed all these years by pretty much everyone who is paid to notice these things? I do agree that the debate went off on a "notability" tangent but even if you re-frame the conversation, not sure significance or importance is "credible" with so little to go on.Aa1232011 (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need to re-read the policy, because you are clearly not understanding it. --Mr. Brown (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking at the references, it seems that there is enough coverage of the subject to satisfy Basic Notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am not an editor on Wikipedia, yet appreciate those who commit themselves to acurate and fair minded contributions. I know Marisol Deluna through her design work and was pleased to see that she was included in the Wikipedia article for the "PILGRIMS SOCIETY" (with few women members as this has traditionally been an "Old Boy's School" and off the internet had been showcased by her scarf design on the front cover of their book. (commissioned by the organization under the advisement of Henry Luce III of the Life Magazine Luce family) She is also on the inside cover explaining her work and membership written by Mr. Luce himself in *The Pilgrims of Great Britain: A Centennial History (2002) - Anne Pimlott Baker, ISBN 1-86197-290-3. However when I noticed her name was removed from their article, it lead me to the Wikipedia "Marisol Deluna" article and subsequently this discussion to show notability. Reading your comments, although thoughful, please allow me to offer a different perspective. Marisol was presented to HM Queen Elizabeth II on two occasions due to her work. I am familiar with both yet know details about the second. It was not a chance meeting in June 2009 at St. James's Palace in London for a private reception hosted for selected Pilgrims Society members in which HM is a patron. (This can be verified through the Majesty's official calendar) Moving forward, I have been impressed by Marisol's business model for years as she will design and take on charitable causes that reach far beyond most fashionable channels without exploitation. She spoke about this at the Campus of Excelencia in Spain (by invitation) There is a "You Tube" clip that shows her lecture. If you go to the "Campus website", you will see several Nobel Prize recipents and other notables listed alongside Marisol. As for finding articles online, if you can get membership private access to many websites (or the noted directly) including the Lansdowne Club in London, the Cosmopolitan Club in New York, numerous Junior Leagues and Colonial Dames (both the CDA and NSCDA), New England Society, American Yacht Club (the oldest in the USA), the Daughters of the American Revolution in London, Holland Dames, Daughters of the British Empire, Wellesley College Alumni(in addition to LULAC, she knows Hillary and Bill Clinton through her designs- just ask) Keeping in mind that she was a middle class hispanic child- Her work is merited by her ability, not elitism or family connections. (I know she did a project for the New York Housing Authority which can likely be found online of through direct contact. This was done at cost) She is obviously a proud Texan (as previously stated) and creates items for the San Antonio Rodeo annually to assist in their scholarship program. This can be seen on their website or through direct contact which has a huge outreach. As I am familiar with the New York Times Wedding Announcements' selection process- Research is done, especially in the 1990's and in the busy month of June when she was married. (This can be researched) I belong to many organizations and her outreach is impressive. For example, the Association of Junior Leagues International has nearly 200,000 members. The Girl Scouts of the USA has countless. The Alpha Phi Foundation and so on. Marisol Deluna as you noted focuses on non for profit and charity. She quietly built a playground for her elementary school to honor her sister who was nominated "Texas Teacher of the Year in 2001". This can be verified through the school. To the point of being notable, please visit websites or contact such as LULAC (the oldest hispanic organization in the USA), the Girl Scouts of USA, the goverment sites for her hometowns San Antonio, TX and New York, NY and so on- Many items are posted for sale, yet her designs are identified as "Fashion Designer Marisol Deluna" whereas other's goods on their websites are not. This is likely used as a selling point due to her following. Due to the nature of her work, she is respected for her dedication to charity and not traditional runway or fashion publications. I read the mention about her having a good publicist for placement on "General Hospital". If this were the case, it is arguable that she did not exploit this mention through promotional material or press releases. (I could not find any through a "Google" search) As for it being a "Stretch", Marisol has made many organizations fashionable which is not common place. She has done so thoughfully and consitantly since her company began. As I did not grow up with computers, many private institutions still depend on direct outreach, so likely for those weary of her lack of presence on the internet should reasonably keep this in mind. I feel strongly to stand up for her, yet she would likely be humbled. Marisol Deluna is worthwhile and not just another fashion designer. She is an American who lives and works in New York, Buenos Aires, Argentina and although not French has lived as an expat for years in Paris. (I am mentioning this to clear up the multi notations as to her nationality as stated on this discussion page) I have been told through several friends that she is currently rebranding the Girl Scouts for their 100th Anniversary to be unveiled in 2012 (an honor) in addition to several other projects despite the current economic climate. Deleting this page would a shame and premature. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryJC (talk • contribs) 21:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC) — HenryJC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I took the time to read your contribution and while I understand you coming to the aid of your aquaintance, most of the points you make still cannot be verified by independent outside sources. If you read the notability guidelines, notability by association (such as when you mention Deluna knowing the Bush' or being a member of prestigious social institutions) does not prove "notability" as far as justifying a personal biography on this website. I tried again to look for more mentions of Deluna and maybe find some lost articles that could be used for citations, quotes, or for validation but have not been able to. Other than the social media variety of mentions and what has been previously mentioned on here, there doesn't seem to be much else. This does not mean all the things you mention are any less admirable or didn't happen, just hard to verify as per Wikipedias regulations. Remember, this is in no way a personal attack. If you notice all the editors that have worked on this article the most are regular contributors and are really trying to find more information that may be used as a reason to keep the article. The reason why some of us deleted mentions of Deluna in other pages is because her inclusion in them was either unjustified, such as with the French citizen article, or had no citation and could not be sourced. Also, living in a country, having a home there, or studying there is different than being a citizen of that country. Another problem I have personally found is that all the mentions I did find associating Deluna to some of the organizations you mention were in 'storefronts" which is promotional in nature such as with the Rodeo, LULAC and the Girl Scouts. The bottom line is that all these things are still being considered. 208.54.86.207 (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with these so-called "promotional in nature" materials being excluded as 'sources' for the purposes of this discussion. In some instances, a Deluna product being offered on a storefront may be the only way to know that she's associated with a particular organization or cause, as most of her work is done for charitable causes -- something that is not regularly covered in the media. --Mr. Brown (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If all it took to be subject of a Wikipedia article was having known, worked for, or collaborated with a big name organization or person, just about every human being on the planet could and would make a legitimate claim to have an article written about them. Think about it. A person cannot be notable by osmosis. When an individual makes a significant enough contribution in any field people notice. Even in charity. Not once or twice or every couple of years; all the time! Articles are written about the person, interviews take place, body of work is added to collections, work is awarded and critiziced, and most importantly, there is outside evidence of the accomplishment. None of which has happened with Deluna. There are no NEUTRAL sources not related to the subject that we can rely on to establish importance. Really all we have to go on is heresay at this moment; we are told of all these "important" people that have worn her designs but an online search only turns up Marisol Deluna wearing her own clothes and accesories. That was one big problem with the original article. I noticed in the discussion pages for Deluna's page that you mentioned that you and another editor had contributed the article for her so I *kind of* understand if you are taking this a bit personally and have trouble remaining neutral with it's pending deletion. For sure the article needed a huge amount of editing. Agree? I still don't think membership in private clubs (regardless of how prestigious) or friendships to luminaries merits and article. Another thing is that in the over three years the article has been up, it was not cleaned up and most importantly, no new sources were accumulated as far as verifiability goes. That speaks volumes as to the "notability" of the subject I think. Lastly, I noticed when I was trying to find more links or mentions that the most in-depth piece of imformation on Marisol Deluna was her original Wikipedia page. Aa1232011 (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... I'm remaining quite neutral, but of course I'm going to defend an article that I contributed to at one point or another... that's the entire point of Wikipedia. I've been on Wikipedia quite a while and have edited probably thousands of pages, providing good edits with substance, while remaining neutral, on subjects I know a great deal about or have an interest in. You, on the other hand, seem hellbent on getting this article deleted and I don't completely buy your story of being a Frenchman who just happened upon this page, going back to the whole "personal vandetta" thing mentioned by another editor. --Mr. Brown (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! What does my identity have to do with you and a small army of editors not being able to provide proof of significant coverage by independent sources on the subject? Nothing! I don't understand the paranoia going around of a "vendetta" being the reason for the editing and proposed deletion of this article. It was not in keeping with the standards on Wikipedia. Fact. I deleted mention of Deluna in articles where she did not belong, then someone else edited the article, then another person edited a little more, then yet another user nominated the article for deletion, then a little more editing was done by someone else, and then another someone else. What's suspicious about that? For someone who is contributed so much to Wkipedia, you should know that's the regular order of business. The only defense against deletion is to provide sources for verification, make truthful statements that can be checked out by others, and citing where the information comes from. Period. Argue all you want until you are red in the face about a fictional vendetta. Argue the facts, not speculation on other editors identities and motives. But if that's the case, I hate to point out all the new users that have recently signed on and contributed nothing to any other article except in defense of Deluna. There's a good "conspiracy" story is that's your cup of tea.Aa1232011 (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I know full well the regular order of business, and having dealt with users of a certain type (I'm sure you know the type!), I know exactly what to do. This article had a few issues before it was gutted by yourself. Entire sections were blanked out, citations included, all of which look entirely appropriate. --Mr. Brown (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I'd also add this - I find it highly suspicious that, for somebody you've never met and apparently know "nothing" about, you were able to say as a matter of fact that she was from Cementville in this edit, despite the citations provided saying nothing at all to support that statement. Nevermind the fact that, as I previously mentioned, stating an Alamo Heights person is from Cementville is sort of like a New Orleanian saying a person from the Garden District is from Central City... it's not exactly a compliment. So, yeah, I obviously have some evidence to prove my assertion that you have a personal vandetta against Ms. Deluna. --Mr. Brown (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does the source say? (Again, this where a quote would be helpful.) If it says Cementville, that settles it, even if it doesn't seem particularly complimentary. Msnicki (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's definitely NOT Cementville. I've pulled the articles that were used to cite that sentence at least once before (unfortuantely, they're not accessible online, as the articles date back nearly 10 years), but it's mentioned in the article that she's from Alamo Heights and she recently attended an Alamo Heights school reunion. I'd also point out that there's no reason for Aa1232011 to even know about "Cementville," given that's he's supposedly French, you know what I mean? I could rattle off neighborhoods of my home town, but nobody except people from my home town would even know about those neighborhoods -- this is same sort of thing. --Mr. Brown (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are getting desperate and I'm getting tired of this. So to clarify your points of view:

1. You believe everyone who edited the article butchered it unjustifiably and then nominated it for deletion because of MY personal vendetta. 2. I personally know Deluna. Which much as your inability to prove she is important, you can't prove or have evidence of either. 3. You question my nationality but then go on to justify Deluna's inclusion in at least four articles that had her named as a citizen of France, Argentina, the US, from Kansas, and San Antonio amongst MANY other inaccuracies. Last time I say this: I did NOT do most of the editing in this article and if you reverse ALL of my edits, you will see this. Whoever was going around adding the name Marisol Deluna to a ton of Wiki articles where there was no reason for her inclusion, was knowingly lying. Period. I already explained my removals from PRIMARILY other articles and my history proves it. Please someone (who is not paranoid) go back to my edits and verify that they were improperly sourced and needed to be deleted? Someone who is not trying to shift focus from the real reasons this is up for deletion can verify that ALL of the times I edited info for this page, it was for a legitimate reason. You obviously know Deluna because in your personal website you also link to her own website. So if anything YOU are the one that has a very personal interest in keeping this page going weather or not you can prove that it merits an article. The link I followed from the Alamo heights High School reunion page was dead but if you visit the website, it very clearly states that the house her father built was in LINCOLN HEIGHTS suburb of Alamo Heights which AT THE TIME DELUNA LIVED THERE, was known as "Cementville". This is the article I used to verify the dates/names: http://www.texasescapes.com/SouthTexasTowns/Cementville-Texas.htm So to end this: Stop harassing me on here and through email about this. Focus on proving the "importance" on Deluna instead of attacking me for doing what was needed. Re-read the original article and ask yourself is just maybe YOU are the one that is wrong and all the other editors that are wasting their time trying to fix YOUR job as a contributor had a logical reason to shorten the article. Aa1232011 (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! You're the one who's paranoid and desperate. I've never emailed you - I don't even know who you are or have your e-mail address, so I can't be "harassing" you through e-mail as you so claim and are using such claims, in my opinion, to bolster a point of view in front of the other editors. Tell me, short of being an administrator - how am I supposed to find your e-mail? I certainly don't have WP:Checkuser privileges. I find it very odd that you make these baseless accusations. I also find it very odd that you seem to be very emotionally invested in a subject that you claim that you don't even know... not very objective, in my opinion.
And yeah, I do know the subject of the article, something that I fully and openly disclose. I'm not going to deny that I know her, but I can remain objective and given my long history of edits on everything from highly sensitive politicial articles such as Edwin Edwards to fun articles such as The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) (which at times can be highly sensitive to some people) show that I can remain objective concerning issues that I feel strongly about, even if it's a person I met before in real life, or if it's a political figure I feel strong about, or a family member. I do it everyday in my job as an APA and I can do it on Wikipedia, as I've demonstrated many times before.
I know I'm not wrong - this article shouldn't have been nominated for AFD A7, because the subject's importance, however menial it might be, has been demonstrated in my eyes and clearly in the eyes of other editors.
Stop this nonsense. --Mr. Brown (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - The coverage that has been shown so far is insufficient for me to say it meets our inclusion criteria. This says she is a noteworthy Latino design talent, but does not give much more coverage. Taken with all of the the other mentions, and hints of notability, that still does not add up to a keep for me. -- Whpq (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you. It is a mention, but hardly more: 37 words about her out of 432 pages in the whole book. Msnicki (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've found some sources that would be acceptable for proving the very low bar of importance for the purposes of Wikipedia. Glo mentions Deluna as a "Latino Girl Crush of the Week," a list of "admired" Latin American women, alongside more "famous" Latino women such as Justice Sotomeyer. Housing Works has a press release referring to Deluna as a "celebrity guest," something that I believe she would not be labeled as if she wasn't believed by the organization to be notable or important. The Villager covers one of the many non-profits she has designed for, and ShinyStyle cites some people that wear her scarves, and LULAC's website shows Ms. Deluna presenting one such scarf to Hillary Clinton. Finally, her items are marketed by a number of organizations and municipalities, and listed as official items of some of those organizations and muncipalities: [18] [19] [20] [21]. --Mr. Brown (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are either the briefest of mentions or just pure sales material. Sorry, none of this is useful in establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very little of what you presented establishes notability. Most of it is passing mentions, or not independent. The only item that I would consider as helping towards the notability is the GLO item [22]. Again, it's a very brief item. It helps, but its not enough for me to say notability is established. -- Whpq (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think a lot of the discussion here is turning around the issue of appreciating to what extent local sources such as La Prensa, San Antonio Magazine or North San Antonio Magazine are reliable enough to establish notability: is is just editorial or is ist backed by reliable fact-checking? I am raising the issue at WP:RSN. Racconish Tk 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 208.54.86.207. A few mentions in local news stories here and there don't make you a notable designer. I checked out the references in the article and they are extremely unimpressive. A few puff pieces, nothing to suggest that she has had any significant success meriting inclusion here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per the editing and comments on the current and condensed version of this article, it is clearly a work in progress that has established basic notability by the research of several Wikipedia editors far beyond the initial proposal for deletion on May 20, 2011. Racconish Tk , Bbb23 (talk), Drmies (talk), Mr. Brown (talk), Qrsdogg (talk) Alteran1 (talk) and Whpq (talk) should be credited for their editing thus far and perhaps others I have overlooked. (My apologies if not noted) In addition to the news articles included in the improved "Marisol Deluna" page, TimidGuy (talk) has located several references in the San Antonio Express News, a Hearst Publication and the Austin-American Statesman that have covered Marisol Deluna and her charitable designs through editorials, not in simply short notations, yet rather nine consistant articles from 2002-2010 under "Google-News-Archives"http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=marisol+deluna+archives&sa=N&tbs=nws:1,ar:1#hl=en&ds=n&sugexp=ldymls&pq=marisol%20deluna%20archives&xhr=t&q=marisol+deluna&cp=15&pf=p&sclient=psy&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=marisol+deluna+&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e63c8a38fa0aa9df&biw=1173&bih=706&bs=1 in additioned to the New York Times "Style Section- Wedding Announcent" published in 1999. Many of these can be used to source verifiable information that have not already been quoted in this article. NancyB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.155.66 (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC) — 72.1.155.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Admittedly the "original article" read a bit fluffy as per Calliopejen1 in reference to 208.54.86.207, yet notability has been established not as a traditional fashion designer, yet rather one with charitable arms since 1997. Editorials aside, her body of work is impressive and has a signature style. I have posted many design projects here not for the sake of name dropping or showing notability, but rather to link others to her work online and display some of the many ways in which non-profits outreach. Additionally she is mentioned in each as their fashion designer: The Girl Scouts of the USA http://www.girlscoutshop.com/gsusaonline/GSProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=GIRL+SCOUT+LEGACY+SILK+SCARF+-+OFFICIAL, Colonial Dames of America http://www.cdany.org/pages/gift_shop.html, LULAC http://www.lulac.net/about/women/fashionproject2.html, Pilgrims Society (front cover dipicting scarf for their centennial) http://www.amazon.com/Pilgrims-United-States-Centennial-History/dp/1861977263, Holland Dames http://www.thevillager.com/villager_343/dutchremember.html, Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route http://www.heritagetrail.org/W3R-NJ/Collectibles.htm, New York City http://a856-citystore.nyc.gov/1/Gifts/4/CityStore-Exclusives/1389/The-New-York-City-Scarf, National Society of Colonial Dames http://www.nchmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/NCHNwinter08newsletter1.pdf, Alpha Phi Foundation http://issuu.com/alphaphiintl/docs/2006spring, San Antonio Stock Show & Rodeo https://secure.sarodeo.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=2&products_id=175&osCsid=ljmamkoqwgxvhio, New York City Housing Authority http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/pr/storecatalogue.shtml, Lansdowne Club http://www.lansdowneclub.com/home/member_services/journal/9---lansdowneclubjournal-09-10.pdf, San Antonio, Texas http://www.sainternationalrelations.org/global-relations, Pequot and American Yacht Clubs respectively http://www.pequotyc.com/default.aspx?p=.NET_ArticleView&qfilter=RSC7204&tview=0&itemID=191428&chgs=&ssid= and Las Comadres Para Las Americas, http://www.lascomadres.org/lco/lco-eng/events/archived/fiestainfo2005.html. Countless others including the Cosmopolitan Club, Lotos Club, New England Society of New York, Junior League, City Garden Club of New York, Daughters of the British Empire, and the General Society of Mechanics and Tradesmen of the City of New York do not advertise or post outside of their membership and rely on tradition mailers or password entry onto their websites, yet she has designed for each and is recognized as such. Msnicki (talk) was correct in beginning this discussion of deletion, as a better article has emerged from it and will grow in time if given an opportunity through verifiable references. Non-profits work differently than traditional fashion outlets or runway shows and are not normally deemed as stylish despite Marisol Deluna's ability to do so. As for brief mentions, keep in mind she was noted (however minor) on her own merit despite not being a household name: http://glo.msn.com/relationships/glos-latina-girl-crushes-6003.gallery, http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Need-About-Latino-History/dp/0452288894/ref=dp_ob_title_bk, http://www.hyundaiusa.com/about-hyundai/diversity/common/assets/Hyundai_Adelante.pdf, http://www.housingworks.org/news-press/detail/housing-works-20th-anniversary-benefit-fashion-for-action-a-sm-ashion-/, http://www.totalprestigemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2345%3Ahousing-works-6th-annual-qdesign-on-a-dimeq-opening&catid=63%3Athe-new-york-sartorialist&Itemid=97 Thank you, NancyB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.155.66 (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC) — 72.1.155.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Aa1232011 (talk) began a "Wikipedia" account alongside the date of deleting full sections of the original article and Marisol Deluna's name from numerous additional articles without requests for additional citations. I wish not to read into his/her intentions yet discount their comments. NancyB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.155.66 (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC) — 72.1.155.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

COMMENT: More Ad Hominem attacks. Clearly 72.1.155.66 is somebody's "sock puppet account" judging by the fact they signed on two days ago and have contributed nothing to any other article except on here. My "intentions" on Wikipedia are improving articles that need it as can be verified by the many WELL CITED contributions I have made to other articles in my short time editing. I believe the anger from some of these users stems from the fact that my initial edits brought this "puff-piece" to the attention of others who noticed the same issues I did. I unfortunately chose an article to start off with that has some commerical/promotional interests involved in it and for which there is an ongoing attempt to shift the focus of the discussion. Wikipedia clearly states Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons which in this case applied to most of the entire original article as the mutliple edits by multiple editors proves. Sections I blanked out had no citations, included POV and opinions, and quotes and claims that could not be verified in any independent source. I did nothing wrong and I looked for sources before I deleted. The end. I would also like to take the time to point out that the following accounts appeared AFTER the deletion process began and have contributed nothing to any other article other than Marisol Deluna's or voting for a "keep" and should probably be brought to the attention of an administrator: 62.252.182.132 and 72.1.155.66 and HenryJC and 99.141.126.125 and 71.255.139.226 Also, all of the new articles presented (which can't be fully and freely accessed so it's impossible to gage length or depth of coverage) are mostly from the same one local newspaper, shed no new information on the subject, are years apart, or are newsletters to private clubs (some of which Deluna supporters have claimed she is a member in) that are neither published outside membership or can be considered independent as secondary sources as per Wikipedia's standards. Aa1232011 (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Clearly stated- I am not a "Wikipedia Editor", yet have followed this particular discussion. I would suggest using QuestPro or LexisNexis to access the content in "Google-News-Archives" before discounting the content found by TimidGuy (talk) to determine the depth of coverage. Some articles state upwards of 600 words when the article is about "Marisol Deluna". (word count is posted on the public articles) The "San Antonio Express-News" is the primary newspaper of the seventh largest city in the USA and Marisol Deluna's hometown, so it is a relevant "Hearst Publication" for finding refernces. As posted by Aa1232011 (talk) she may or may not belong to "Clubs", yet being "Hispanic" would not allow her "Membership" into organizations such as the "Colonial Dames" or "National Colonial Dames of America", "Holland Dames", "Daughters of the British Empire", "Daughters of the American Revolution" or men's only clubs, etc. If anything, "Deluna" being noted and selected to design for such can stake claim to her merit. The new links used (thus far) on this article in formation have improved it. Keep up the good work. Elizabeth Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.66.144 (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC) — 66.65.66.144 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Wikipedia warns about what's happening in this debate: "Canvassing, Sock puppetry, and Meatpuppetry. Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable. Neutral, informative messages to Wikipedia noticeboards, WikiProjects, or editors are permitted, but actions that could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to "stuff the ballot box" or otherwise compromise the consensus building process would be considered disruptive editing". A lot of the link spamming, ad hominem attacks, unverifiable claims, and sudden appearance of new users who just "happen" to find this discussion in the last few days (all voting for a keep, all anonymous users, all exceptionally well informed on Deluna's most minute life detail, club membership, and itinerary) are adding a whole new level of dishonesty to this discussion. Something needs to be done about this. Aa1232011 (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated, like you, I am now an "Editor" despite having contributed to pages in the past albeit at a snail's pace and under my "IP Address". Rest assured, the only "Socks" I deal with are those worn on my feet! Reasonably I understand your concerns, yet after reading posts by newly established editors like us- My hope is that we can work and grow together! As for unsigned postings, some have proven to be helpful in content links (for me) in finding verifiable articles which I will scan and post for all editors/contributors to access. In certain circles, she is respected so Marisol Deluna has many supporters due to the nature of her non-profit work whether this article remains or is removed. Simply stay on course with this topic and other articles of your interest. Enjoy! ElizabethCB123 (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the community Elizabeth! As previously noted, my main gripe was people signing up just to make personal attacks or vote with no intention of contributing to anything else in a meaningful way. I have had my motives and intentions questioned for being a relatively new user as well so I apologize if it felt like I was doing that to you. I do believe people of different generations, life circles, and backgrounds contributing is what makes Wikipedia so all-encompassing and dynamic. Happy editing!Aa1232011 (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This can't be the first time an AfD has attracted a bunch of SPAs. The closing admin should be able to see past the 4 SPAs (Alteran1, HenryJC, 72.1.155.66 and 66.65.66.144) to realize there's still no consensus. The rest of the !votes are still quite divided, with 6 favoring delete (Msnicki, Aa1232011, 208.54.86.207, Whpq, Calliopejen1 and frankie) and 6 favoring keep (Bbb23, Drmies, Mr Brown, Racconish, Qrsdogg and Alan the Roving Ambassador). Msnicki (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True. It just seems to be getting out of hand here! Every comment and opinion is being disected and attacked. Admittedly, the fact that several of these one time users started throwing accusations at me has turned this debate personal for me and I could've just ignored them but I imagine it's disruptive to others too. Aa1232011 (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Msnicki (talk)- As noted, I am not a "Wikipedia Editor", yet if I were, my opinion would be valued? That is absolutely unfair. I find "Marisol Deluna" (and others yet to be commented on Wikipedia) worthwhile. In the true spirit of this encyclopedia, I would think editors would only want people who are passionate and knowledge based about topics (editors or non-editors who review vast or specific topics be it pro and con) to contribute. What I supplied is helpful based on "fact". Aa1232011 mentioned the lack of use of "Google-News-Archives"http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=marisol+deluna+archives&sa=N&tbs=nws:1,ar:1#hl=en&ds=n&sugexp=ldymls&pq=marisol%20deluna%20archives&xhr=t&q=marisol+deluna&cp=15&pf=p&sclient=psy&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=marisol+deluna+&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e63c8a38fa0aa9df&biw=1173&bih=706&bs=1. This is his/her opinion yet gave a mere suggestion to reading each in full (and a means in which to do so) as I have read each and plan to add to the "Marisol Deluna" article when time permits shortly. She is a fashion designer who is notable by way charitable avenues- not Fifth Avenue. Do I have to be an "Editor" to be credible? I feel as if you have just directed me and others to the back of a bus. Elizabeth Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.66.144 (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't meant to be personal but it is the way things work on Wikipedia. There's a good explanation of how and why you're encountering greater skepticism at WP:SPA. Also, you will have more or less influence arguing for keep depending on how well you demonstrate that the (somewhat technical) notability guidelines at WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:CORPDEPTH have been met. Realistically, that means you're at a disadvantage if you're new and haven't had time to digest them. Msnicki (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Msnicki (talk)- Dear, this seems reasonable as rules are rules and truth is truth. Wondering- If I add information to the "Marisol Deluna" article that have been found in the reliable sources identified by TimidGuy (talk) and others- Can I do this to add verifiable value and prove additional nobility without being an editor? Also, something I noticed in the "Rules of Wikipedia" is not all reliable sources have to be posted online to be credible some references go further back than when the internet has been in daily use. Please advise. I will do my best. Thank you. Elizabeth Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.66.144 (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, anyone is free edit. But again, I think you may find it helpful to read the notability guidelines at WP:GNG. The debate isn't about whether there's enough information in the article or whether it's sufficiently impressive. The issue being debated here is all and only about whether there are sufficient reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability. If you have sources, you should add them. If you have copies and can scan them, you can post them to sites like scribd.com so we can all read them. But without sources, simply adding additional information to the article is unlikely to be helpful. Msnicki (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Msnicki (talk)- Dear, "Thank you" for being so helpful to me and surely others! (Especially for mentioning the scanning site) I will tend to this by week's end yet might ask additional questions if needed. Elizabeth Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.66.144 (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not our own personal standards, rules, and regulations we are citing. I was making an observation that Wikipedia's own policies frown upon because of the potential for misuse and abuse. I imagine all of their guidelines and codes of conduct were determined precisely to keep people from negatively impacting a vote or an article out of malice. Try to imagine if suddenly 100 new users showed up to this debate tomorrow and all voted "Delete" who signed on just for the purpose of swaying the vote. There are two sides to every story.Aa1232011 (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aa1232011 (talk)- I am happy to read that you wrote that "there are two sides to every story" as this page clearly defends the merit or deletion of a woman that although is not valued by all is appreciated by others. Thank you. Elizabeth Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.66.144 (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. In any situation, the same information, sources, and subject matter will be valued, interpreted, and processed differently by everyone. Both sets of opinions matter and are needed in the debate. Know that an experienced, neutral, and uninvolved admin or editor will have the final say on all that's been presented. It's not "personal" or a reflection on Deluna per se, but more specifically the sources of information available. Thank you for remaining polite with your words. Aa1232011 (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources are reliable, but the content amounts to very little. There isn't anything else to be found other than what the article already includes, and it only serves to verify the information, with only a few claims of significance. The rest is a very generous biography of the subject - frankie (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just for the record, I'm not related to the IP (66.65.66.144) who is identifying herself as Elizabeth Brown. No relation. Just figured I'd put that out there in case anybody thinks there's shenanigans. --Mr. Brown (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not related to "Mr. Brown", or atleast not that I know of! Anyhow, as of today I have a "User Page" and on my way to assisting this article and others in due time. Grateful for other editor's helpful suggested as noted in this thread. Currently I am collecting reliable independent secondary sources to increase visibility to Marisol Deluna with articles which will be scanned onto scribd.com as suggested. Thank you for my inclusion.ElizabethCB123 (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was a bit of a PR piece, but it is being worked on and cleaned up. She's a notable designer and worthy of an article. --Muldo (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC) — Muldo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Therom

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

I originally prodded this thinking it had something to do with William Arthur Kirk, but the author removed the tag because it apparently does not. I've searched "Kirk theorem" consecutive but nothing relevant came up. It's a very obvious property of numbers (the average would be the middle number, duh) that I don't know if it even has a name. ... discospinster talk 02:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, perhaps I am confused. The biographical article on William Arthur Kirk refers to both the Caristi-Kirk theorem and the redlinked Kirk Theorem. Does anyone know whether these are essentially distinct? Dingo1729 (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an algebraic triviality which can have nothing to do with William Arthur Kirk. The result here was certainly known, for example, to Gauss. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Entirely trivial. Certainly not an eponymous theorem. Nageh (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Modern sources have been linked to in the discussion.  Sandstein  07:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White Aethiopians

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

Seems to be nothing but a dictionary entry for a racial term used by Pliny. I can't find any modern sources that discuss this term or its synonym leucaethiopes in anything more than passing. If someone wants to write about this area then Historical race concepts#Ancient Greek theories is the place to do so (not a merge proposal). Fences&Windows 02:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 02:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 02:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dictionary definition. No sign that it could grow to include encyclopedic content.   Will Beback  talk  03:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary under the title wikt:Leucaethiopes as a Latin dictionary definition. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a dreadful article, I've just deleted some text that not only was not in the cited source but certainly to me looked clearly wrong. For journal articles from this century alone, see [23]. An interesting 1960 article is here [24]. Google books has quite a bit too. But 'Aethiopians' is just odd, since the sources almost all use "white Ethiopians". I'll also note that although some sources suggest they may have been Berbers, as the article asserts, others disagree, eg [25]. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems easy to find sources which discuss this in detail, such as Affairs of West Africa. Warden (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only sources provided are old, and there is no indication of notablity or adequate sources for an article. Should be covered under Ethiopia. TFD (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps it should be merged, but the link I gave has recent sources, and [26] R Smith - Journal of World History, 2003 -"The Leukaethiopes, literally "white Ethiopians," or, since the term "Ethiopian" referred to skin color, the "white black men," were located by Ptolemy in the interior of southern Morocco. Ptolemy did not invent them since earlier Pliny had also mentioned them. " That's a 2003 article. Others can be found in Google books and scholar. Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bratz products

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

There was no indication of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory Bentogoa (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The other Bratz articles are probably sufficient, we don't need to dupicate the catalog, I think. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wouldn't this section from WP:LISTPURP be enough to show that this is notable? "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." It is a structured list organized chronologically. Other than that, I really have no desire to see this on Wikipedia because it isn't something I care about. It was also decided to be notable in the first AFD; although, I am fairly certain that is irrelevant. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
  • Relisted because this is such a turn-around from the last AFD, it'd be nice to know more clearly if this is a true case of changing consensus, or selection bias by a small attendance. Another week in this case seems beneficial. Any admin that wants to close it, of course, is free to do so. Courcelles 02:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment should this be shown to parties that may be interested so that they can comment? I am creating a message for all the Wikipedians who contributed to the last afd. Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a useful list, just a list of non-notable items. bW 03:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as wholly unreferenced for 4.64 years and lacking any evidence of notability. — Fourthords | =/\= | 03:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just a list of Bratz products with no additional information, basically a duplicate of a product catalogue. No sources whatsoever. JIP | Talk 06:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Wikipedia is neither a directory, nor a list of indiscriminate items. This article is both and therefore needs to be deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:N, WP:V, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and the other delete !votes here. It's just a list without any context and without any WP:RS. — Becksguy (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Berridge

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

I could not confirm the notability of this topic through online searches, but was loathe to propose it for deletion without peer review. On the one hand, the information in this article is likely uncontentious and helpful to our readers; on the other hand, we cannot responsibly maintain unsourceable biographies on people of marginal notability. Skomorokh 15:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No independant refs. There were none at the first afd either so I don't know why it was kept. He just has a job in publishing, so what? Will change my mind if someone provides a good ref. Szzuk (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Starblind's comments at the initial AFD. Has done enough creative work to justify an article, and there's no reason to believe reasonable sourcing can't be developed. We don't need to apply celebrity bio standards to everybody; a stub setting forth his creative work for notable publications is sufficient. If more can be written, that's icing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 02:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks sources to prove claims of meeting WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Jackson (news anchor)

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

Non-notable television personality. I don't find anything in relevent google searches to indicate the existance of extensive, reliable, independent sources as indicated by WP:BIO. Jayron32 05:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect. Non-notable news anchor that has never left her originating station in a mid-major market. Nate • (chatter) 01:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Priest

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNews of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. ttonyb (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. could not find significant coverage of this individual. [27]. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On the face of it, the article appears to be more worthy of keeping than the glib assertions that it failed to meet policies without really saying how it did not meet those policies. However, what really tips the balance for me is the fact that the article is pretty much entirely based upon original research, as acknowledged by the article's creator. For that reason, without there being any other independent, reliable, and verifiable sources, I cannot see how this person is notable.Agent 86 (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Supergator. Neutralitytalk 06:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dinocroc 2

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

Unreferenced, unclear notability. The sequel was proposed, but the network didn't want it. That's about it. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 00:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:NFILM. I wouldn't even suggest a redirect to Dinocroc (which is in terrible shape, btw) because the article even says that most of the information about it is unknown. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 03:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as reasonable serach term, but to Supergator as THAT is the film Roger Corman made as a sequel when Sci-Fi Channel turned down Dinocroc 2: "He wanted to make a Dinocroc 2. The Sci-Fi Channel balked at a direct sequel because they claimed sequels didn't perform well for them or some typical Sci-Fi brass nonsense. Corman went ahead and made his Dinocroc sequel under the guise of Supergator." and "Corman decided to push forward with a Dinocroc sequel but under a new moniker - Supergator" Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just added and sourced a redirect target there: Supergator#Background. It tells of "Dinoroc 2" being turned down and becoming Supergator instead. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Good idea. I can't think of anything else to say that might be helpful right now. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. The current article is basically devoid of information. JIP | Talk 06:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. While at least two of the external references were from entities of substance, I believe the actual pieces qualify as trivial under the Internet notability guidelines. "A brief summary of the nature of the content" doesn't really qualify as substantial coverage. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 05:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cayole

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

Cruise reservation website launched last year, little third-party coverage. Speedy deletion challenged by the creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The website is reasonably new, thus it doesn't have hundreds of articles discussing it. However, in my opinion it is notable because it shows historical cruise prices and future price predictions for cruises, something that no other website does. For this feature, the website was mentioned in articles in Newsweek, New York Times and Tnooz. The Newsweek and Tnooz articles were fully devoted to Cayole, while the New York Times article mentioned in extensively. It is my understanding that these articles constitute a non-trivial coverage by third-party credible sources and as such the article should not be deleted. Here is the link offered by Mike Rosoft defining trivial coverage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEB

In my judgement, none of the 3 sources fit the trivial coverage criteria mentioned above. --Greekguyinboston (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC) — Greekguyinboston (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • You're flat-out admitting that the sources don't meet Wikipedia guidelines? I was going to !vote delete anyway due to the lack of coverage, but what you just said seals it. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 03:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erpert - please read carefully what I wrote. An admin said that sources are "trivial". I just linked to the guidelines showing that none of the sources are TRIVIAL i.e. all sources are non-trivial. And I believe New York Times, Newsweek and Tnooz are all solid sources.--Greekguyinboston (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erpert - I'm curious as to where did you find that need for "in-depth" coverage? The link that you mentioned yourself says "significant" coverage. Moreover, according to your own link "[Significant coverage] means that sources address the subject directly in detail ... but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Just for your information - in Newsweek the whole article was dedicated to Cayole.com, while New York times discussed it in 2 full paragraphs (which is not a little by NYT standards). Moreover, Tnooz article was also fully dedicated to Cayole.com.--Greekguyinboston (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weakest possible keep ever I very reluctantly give this keep !vote. Although the website does technically meet WP:GNG and WP:WEB, it really isnt that unique or notable in my honest opinion. I would say that it meets the letter but not the intent of these guidelines and I am tempted to invoke WP:IAR. To closing admin, please give this the least weight possible.--v/r - TP 02:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient coverage from Reliable Sources. The so-called Newsweek article is actually an item from a Budget Travel blog. [28] The NYT mentions the site in passing. There is an interview at TNooz, but I have no indication that TNooz is a reliable or independent site as Wikipedia defines it. --MelanieN (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben 10: Ultimate Challenge

Ben 10: Ultimate Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 09:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The State (album). (non-admin closure) CTJF83 00:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worthy to Say

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

Attempted redirects have been reverted, but this song is just not notable to merit its own article. Never good when the article itself states how badly it performed on the charts and what little airplay it received. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to appropriate album article. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. A separate article is not necessary for this song. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to album page The State, as it fails notability per WP:NSONGS.--Michaela den (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The only "notability" (to use the term loosely) of the song was to appear on a year-end list of a single radio station.Agent 86 (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Given that nobody opposes the deletion. But should be restored if sources are found to establish notability.  Sandstein  07:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Rock (vinyl series)

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

This is an incomplete and malformed list that doesn't assert notability (prod and {{db-album}} were denied.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since the nomination, Kushty500 (talk · contribs) appears to have completed the list. Thryduulf (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As far as I can tell, these are double albums featuring, in most cases, four artists (one artist per each side of a disc) released in the UK that accompanied a magazine called History of Rock. Most hits I found, however, were either comprehensive discographies (such as this) or auction-type sites ([29] and [30]). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Kaytis

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

Non-notable animator lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to be neutral on this since he worked on so many Disney films, but almost all of the sources are from his own podcast. Delete or at least make 20% cooler. Rainbow Dash 00:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "Disney animator" isn't in itself notable; hundreds of artists work on each Disney film. Needs significant coverage in reliable sources. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Thornett

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

Not notable. As a functionary in a small British political party, Thornett does not meet criteria for WP:POLITICIAN or any of the general criteria. TreveXtalk 17:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Passes WP:GNG. He has received substantial coverage such as this 1976 article in The Age. Press coverage of the subject on Google news spans over 30 years and is international in scope. Pburka (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Long-term influence in the convolutions of various Trotskyist organisations; see the 6 references in Alexander's "International Trotskyism, 1929-1985" for example. AllyD (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above; main figure in a small group, but has received coverage in reliable sources out of proportion to its size. Warofdreams talk 13:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert-Bertrand Barbe

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

Not sure how to deal with this one. Obviously WP:CREATIVE applies, but I'm not sure the subject meets it. The French version of the article is a carbon copy (not sure which one was the original), and the Spanish version was deleted just a couple of days ago. bender235 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is clearly an electronic translation of the French version - the advisory box at the end of that version which starts "Cette bibliographie a trop d'ouvrages..." appears as part of a paragraph at the end of the English version! This indicates no serious attempt on the part of the editor to provide a usable article. The English editor is a single-purpose account. I can't make very much sense of the article because of the machine translation. This sentence for example "This work reveals the orientation already deeply panofskienne Norbert-Bertrand Barbe". Leaning backwards to try to be fair, I'll point out that the subject has some publications in Amazon - not that that means very much but it does show that there is a possibility of notability. Can the original editor take it down and work on it to improve the English and to demonstrate notability?Asnac (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whatever the merits of the subject, I think it is better to wait for a proper translation. Automatic translations require no effort and nothing would be lost by deleting this. --Hegvald (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation. I have not investigated whether the subject is notable. However, a machine translation dumped into the English language Wikipedia is not something useful for our readers, and is not a good base to build an article. Readers can get their own machine translation themselves easily enough. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This particular article is insufficiently sourced and poorly translated. (Example: One footnote says, The entire internet is available in an extended version on the website of the journal Katharsis Revista, No. 6, March 2008. That would be very impressive if it were true.) As Whpq said, deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Closing early given the lack of reliable sources and the negative content added to the article repeatedly, and the apparent request by subject for removal of the content. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Savage

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

Well, I've looked for the coverage here. And the easiest thing to find on Google under this name is a murder victim from 1903. I can't find any significant coverage about this Carrie Savage, not a whiff of it. The subject apparently has issues with this article (c.f. BLPN thread). If someone can find the coverage, great. If not, this needs to go. Courcelles 00:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Courcelles is travelling (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Courcelles is travelling (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nor could I find any sources beyond a couple Wiki-style pages with her birthdate. Alleged subject claims the only true fact is her birthdate and that she does not share biographical information. Looks like this one will get her way. Elizium23 (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, being very unfamiliar with her sphere of work it is difficult to judge if her roles were significant enough to pass WP:ENT, but the lack of reliable sources covering her suggests that they probably were not. doomgaze (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unreferenced BLP Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Apparently inaccurate and extremely-poorly-referenced BLP, thus failing WP:V. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --- Clearly, like many lesser known voice artists there are very few if not zero reliable sources that will have information on them. As with any article, there's the possibility that one day there may be references, but I doubt it. SwisterTwister (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Taking this edit at face value, looks as if the subject would prefer privacy - that in itself wouldn't be sufficient reason for deletion, but given borderline notability and poor sourceability (except for professional credits that can just as easily be found on IMDB), I think we ought to err on the side of respecting that wish. --GenericBob (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE, due to very weak secondary references. Notability is questionable if the only sources are the source material and websites dedicated to the source material. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 05:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greystone (comics)

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

Comic character article that is all plot and not sourced to any reliable sources to prove notability. Doesn't seem to pass the general notability guidelines, let alone the guidelines for fiction. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_May_28&oldid=1142637186"