Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 April 3 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_April_3

< 2 April	4 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Tietjen

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

Non notable politician. DimaG (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being on the city council is not notable in most cases, and being on the city council of East Hanover, New Jersey (population 11,427) isn't one of the exceptions. I did like the succession box for the office of principal of the local elementary school. Mandsford (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford. Cute, but does not cut it. Her name gets over 2,300 Ghits, but most of those are networking sites and mirrors. If you remove those, much of what remains is not clearly about this politician, but may be about other people. She also has zero news Ghits. I can verify that she's a Principal, but that's it. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the name of fairness, I added the single cite that I could find. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. disclosure: my former internist may be a relative of hers. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Mandsford. An unambiguous fail of WP:POLITICIAN. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sources and verified accomplishments to establish notability MiRroar (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with all of the above. This is an uncontroversial delete. Didn't check whether it was prodded first, but if not, it probably should have been. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ten O Nine Records

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

Non notable record label. DimaG (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've edited this article a bit in the past, and waited to see if the company would eventually exhibit notability, but they haven't. Their sole claim to fame is that James Burton played on one release, and that's not sufficient. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 23:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian Calendar

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

No sources except selfpublished that this is notable Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently, there is a guy named Zoltan Hunnivari who published an e-book and advanced this theory. There's no indication that anyone else took notice of it [1], [2]. It's only mention seems to be on blogs and forums by people who saw the Wikipedia article. Mandsford (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, plus no mention of author on hungarian wp, the most likely place for him to be featured.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TeXCAD

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

Non notable software. DimaG (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't see how this is notable or even particularly useful. Nageh (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found it mentioned here. But otherwise coverage in reliable sources doesn't appear to exist for this software. What does turn up more often is Textile Composite Analysis for Design which is also called texcad. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Independent Spirit Award for Best Female Lead. as duplication of existant article JForget 00:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Spirit Award for Best Lead Female

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

Redundant to Independent Spirit Award for Best Female Lead After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect as duplicative article. Good catch. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts makes a valid point. The transposition of the words "Female Lead" and "Lead Female" make this a definitely reasonable search term. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joop Kasteel

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

The only cited source in this article is a fight list (currently 404 anyway). The sole claim to notability is uncited. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 05:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 05:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added more sources with coverage. If he was indeed world champion in MMA at one point, like the sources say, then he would immediately qualify for notability, per WP:MANOTE. Silver seren^C 05:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:MANOTE is an essay. It has no relevance here. The sources added (as "external links" not supporting any of the material in the article) appear to be mostly unreliable (official website, interviews, blogs, etc). However, the sources do verify, reliably, that he is the Dutch champion and a professional fighter (see the Liverpool Echo article which is about the only link I would consider reliable). That is enough in my view to get him over WP:ATH. I would support stubbification. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:MANOTE is an essay which is part of the Martial Arts Project and represents the consensus of the MA editors (see the talk page). jmcw (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I understand that. But MANOTE does not represent the consensus of the community at large, in the way that WP:ATH and WP:BIO do. The community decides what articles are kept and deleted, not individual wikiprojects. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikiprojects are given general jurisdiction over additional, more specific notability for their areas of interest. The essays on notability created by Wikiprojects are generally considered to be consensus for that topic. This is even more so for the Martial Arts Wikiprojects, where there is not even any opposition to the notability guidelines, but full consensus. And, as the box on the top of the Football Wikiproject says, "This page is an essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest. It has not been accepted as a Wikipedia policy or guideline, though it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion or when considering creating a standalone article. The degree of consensus that went into creating this essay (a potential measurement of the reliability of the advice) can be judged by consulting the history and talk pages. WikiProjects are encouraged to write essays on notability." Silver seren^C 18:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please refer to WP:ESSAYDEL. Silver seren^C 18:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also refer to WP:ONLYESSAY. Silver seren^C 19:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects are given no jurisdiction whatsoever. The community decides what gets included in the encyclopaedia, not a narrow group of experts in a particular field. No amount of lawyering about the meaning of an essay - by citing essays on the meaning of essays - can affect that basic principle. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ESSAYDEL is a proposed policy essay, so it is certainly given higher priority. Furthermore, are you seriously going to discredit arguments to avoid when it is linked and referenced everywhere by hundreds of users? And I am offended that you would accuse me of wikilawyering. Silver seren^C 19:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I accuse you of wikilawyering? I don't mean plain "lawyering" to be a perjorative term. I'm a lawyer myself. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made the assumption that when you said "No amount of lawyering", you were referring to Wikilawyering. If I was wrong, then I apologize. Silver seren^C 19:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The essay is ment to give helping hints on point that are worth looking at. As mentioned it was jsut saying what had been considered. --Nate ^t/_c 12:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 23:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to pass WP:Athlete as fully professional, 31 fight mostly in notable promotions. --Nate ^t/_c 12:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spanking magazine

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

No evidence of notability. Completley unsourced. EuroPride (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, not much better than a definition, and the topic is already mentioned briefly at fetish magazines (also unsourced).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no evidence of notability. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kawehi Lindsey

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

Non notable album. DimaG (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. A non-notable album by a non-notable musician released on a non-notable label. Erpert (let's talk about it) 21:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - regardless of notability of the album, the real issue here is that per the Albums Project there should first be an article about the artist and that article should pass the notability test itself. Album articles are the second step. Also, I suggest the nominator take a look at WP:JNN. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free theory

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

Original research. DimaG (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete per WP:SOAP. In addition, the creator started the article in November 2007 and hasn't been on Wikipedia since. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it hasnt started snowing yet, but it will.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to synephrine. Tim Song (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synephrine hydrochloride

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

Promotional article looking as if the use of synephrine as a "nutritional supplement" were the standard one, while the use as a drug were only "claimed". See Synephrine#Associated risks for a case study on synephrine as a dietary supplement. The article could also be merged into Synephrine, but there is hardly anything to merge. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nominator: The first deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L-Arginine Malate where multiple articles were nominated. Result was "Each article should be judged on its own merit". --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and my nomination statement at the first AfD. Them From Space 21:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the nominator does not care for the tone of the article then this is best remedied by editing rather than deletion. The chemical compound is well-recognised and covered in numerous reliable sources and so there is no case for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to synephrine - trivial salt of free base. We have a long-standing convention to write about the free acid or free base forms, unless the salt is particularly important. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to synephrine per Rifleman 82 - makes sense to combine free base and common salt forms into one article. Boghog (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Redirect from nominator. I've started cleaning up some unsupported claims, but think someone else should do the redirect/merge since I'm not strictly NPOV about this and would probably just redirect and lose the content. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Boghog (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to synephrine per Rifleman 82. Anything useful can be merged. — Scientizzle 14:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gmail. (non-admin closure) mono 02:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gmail Mobile

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

Proposing merge into Gmail. mono 19:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So merge it. You don't need an AfD to do that. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you will need to discuss it first. Probably a major product like this is significant in its own right. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close if you want to discuss it, you could file an RFC, or post notices at WP:TELECOM, WP:WEBSITES, WP:PM. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belmont Club

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

Non-notable political blog. Of the references given in the article, the first does not mention the blog, only quotes its author; the second is an editorial; the third is the site itself; and the fourth is an unadorned link from ABC's blog (which can in no way be considered to fulfill WP:WEB criterion 2, before someone brings it up). I'm not seeing anything that would meet the general notability guideline in my own searches. Prod was disputed after the fact on the basis that "PROD process did not invite input". —Korath (Talk) 19:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a bit of an oddball case. Like academics, the more intellectual bloggers are seldom written about per se, and more likely to be quoted or cited. In that context, Fernandez is a decently significant public intellectual. The Sunday Times piece describes the pseudonym used by the author on the blog - an indirect tribute. The Weekly Standard piece also gives the blog high praise as an influential military blog - and I fail to see what it being an editorial has to do with anything, for purposes of notability. Here is Salon critiquing Fernandez in the context of press corruption by insurgents in Iraq [3], being quoted at length in another Weekly Standard blog [4], by Michael Barone in US News [5] on the corruption in the US government, co-authoring a contributed feature in the Jerusalem Post with an American brigade commander [6]. This is pretty amazing for a Filipino-born Australian with no official position whatever in the government. Insofar as an encyclopedia is supposed to be about human knowledge and the people who generate it, influential intellects like Fernandez's, and the work they produce deserve a writeup (this is, if you like, a direct analogy to WP:PROF criterion 7, although Fernandez is not an academic in the standard sense of the term). Ray^Talk 00:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 00:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 00:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ray, does your view mean that maybe this article should be about the person rather than the blog? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, I'm indifferent. In the normal practice of covering academics, we make the article about the person, and not the work. But here, all the person's notability stems from work very closely identified with the blog. I could go either way here, I just think it's important the material is retained and available for our readers. Ray^Talk 02:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- seems a decently sourced small article on a notable public intellectual, notable illustrated by the discussion of his contribution/analysis in Salon, US News, Sunday Times, etc. N2e (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ray, possibly move to Richard Fernandez per Buckshot06. Mildly comparable articles might be Michael Totten and Michael Yon (I say "mildly" because Yon and Totten are reporters whereas Fernandez analyses stuff, but their notability is similar). Miracle Pen (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and, if moved to Richard Fernandez, then a redirect from Belmont Club to Richard Fernandez should be kept in place. But, since Fernandez is mainly known for the Belmont Club, rather than vice versa, and since the Belmont Club has long been distinctly a complexus of Fernandez and his commenters, I'd argue for a redirect from Richard Fernandez to the Belmont Club. The Tetrast (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Appears to be nothing more the a private blog with no history, and it's inclusion in Wikipedia is questionable. The Scythian 15:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thyroid disease health scam

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

This one is a little tricky. According to the article, there is an e-book available that supposedly discusses a cure for thyroid disease, but nowhere in the article or in the external links does it even mention the title of the book. After some heavy Google searching, it appears that the book was written by Perry Belcher, but he doesn't even have an article (possibly because his arrest violates WP:ONEEVENT). His name on here redirects to Selmedica, a company he worked for, but I don't suggest redirecting this article there because it doesn't go into detail what connection (if any) the two subjects have other than Mr. Belcher. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnotable and unencyclopedic, there are countless scams for just about everything.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Redirect (non-admin closure) Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Profsoyuznaya (street)

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

A disambiguation page with only red links, even if these do become valid links should be merged with Profsoyuznaya. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Redirected. --TarzanASG (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Looks like this was resolved already. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Joseph Johnson

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

Sadly, he's not notable, few references, and no major policy changes resulting from his death. Hourick (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see WP:BLP1E. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, highly notable event especially because of the illegal immigration implications. Many references added. Postoak (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, While there might have been a slight change on how to handle illegals, I don't think it is worthy of an article in itself. I do, however, think that an article with ALL the officers that have fallen in Houston would have some merit.--Hourick (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage to meet the GNG, indicating a likely durable impact on state public policy. And (we noted with malice aforethought) the "Star of Texas" award is clearly more notable than many of the awards which have, unfortunately, been seen as conferring notability on various niche/fringe entertainers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Niggerball

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

Prodded by SlimVirgin (rationale given was "The article has been unsourced since its creation in 2005, when it was created with the edit summary "Info from personal experience." I've been unable to find a source not derived from this article."). However, as there has already been an AfD for this article, I feel that it should go through AfD once more. NW (Talk) 16:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still unsourced after all this time. It's a holdover from the earlier days, when all you needed was personal experience as your source, and all it took for a keep was a couple of people saying "I've heard of this too". Mandsford (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article on the song by jeremy taylor show links to the lyrics, which confirm this phrase is in the song. however, it doesnt specifically state what the word means in this context (though im sure it does refer to the candy, thats not enough, as my brain is not a reliable source). This being the only documented use of the word that i can find, and given that its a hugely insulting pejorative, we would need strong documentation that this phrase was used commonly, otherwise this is really just a mean spirited joke posing as an article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Mandsford. No apparent sources after several years of waiting. Steven Walling 21:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The article was indefinite semi-protected. Neither IP User or not established user could edit this page. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 21:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take that long to become an "established user". The whole purpose of semi-protection is to deter vandalism. Generally, a person who hides behind an IP address probably doesn't have anything scholarly to contribute to an article with this name. Mandsford (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability as a term suitible for an encyclopedia article. Possibly worthy of inclusion in a sister project like Wiktionary, but there isn't anything here to justify keeping this article, given the lack of indepth reliable sources which establish this as a reasonable wikipedia article. --Jayron32 22:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search for "Niggerball" returned almost false positives, and the summary when created "based on personal experience" matches WP:OR. Oh, and did I forget to mention it doesn't even have an article on the Afrikaans Wikipedia, so why here? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was created in 2005 with the edit summary "Info from personal experience," and no sourced has been added since. I looked for one and couldn't find one that was independent of this article. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more trouble than it's worth and not supported by references. Not sure what I was thinking four years ago when I wanted to keep this. Grand master ka 23:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. While it may be accurate, it's not verifiable. The article has been moved from semi-protected to just move-protected, so if there are sources and facts to add in support, now's the time. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DigiVault Remote Backup

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

Unable to locate any coverage in reliable sources suggesting notability. Note when searching for sources that there seems to be an unrelated company/product also named "DigiVault" that does MS Exchange backup. Cybercobra (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is another completely independent and separate company based in New Zealand called DigiVault. That company is not listed in Wikipedia. The suggestions for reliable sources and notability are appreciated and will be worked on. DigiVault, Inc. is notable in that it is the only listed Canadian based remote backup solution provider. It offers similar and in many cases superior backup protection for its Canadian clients. Which is relevant for professionals such as lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc. that have highly confidential information with the requirement to store their backups locally on Canadian servers protected under Canadian law. There seems to be an inconsistency in scrutiny in this area as well. There are at least two other similar remote backup companies listed - BackMii, and PowerFolder - that have similar recommendations, but no deletion request. All three are relevant to the remote backup service category. And I would think any Canadian users would like to see remote backup solutions specific to their locale. wperdigao —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC). — Wperdigao (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Regarding the other similar articles, see WP:OTHERCRAP. Without evidence that this satisfies the notability guideline, this is practically an advertisement. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I further note that BackMii has been deleted anyway, and PowerFolder survived a deletion attempt as significant coverage was found. You have presented no such coverage and I haven't found any either. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage about this company in reliable sources. Note that the company was founded in 2009 according to the article so it is very new. -- Whpq (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 16:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable software. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Fowler

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

5 month old Bio that does not cite a source and notability is a huge concern here. ~~This also was deleted two years ago.~~ Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note, the previous AfD was for a football player, and not a martial-artist. Just in case anyone was planning on bringing WP:CSD G4 to the party! Cheers, --Jimbo^[online] 19:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I guess I should have read more carefully. I just saw athlete and assumed it was the same guy.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 02:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 02:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a ton of sources that I found from a Google News search. They easily establish notability. Silver seren^C 02:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of unreliable 'external links' there (PRweb!) but I'm willing to take a punt on the Saipan Tribune being reliable. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 16:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Mkativerata, and because he's won some awards. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has some news coverage in English sources [7] and if we searched for news sources from Brazil, I'm sure we'd find more. Dream Focus 05:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Weiss

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

PROD removed. No reliable sources to show notability - notability is not inherited through association with bands that have won awards etc. I cannot find any appropriate sources (nothing in Google News). I cannot find verifiable information about the subject. See also WP:BLP Chzz ► 21:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 01:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged the article for rescue. I found two sources, but i'm sure there's more to be found somewhere because, according to IMDb, he did do most of the things it says. Silver seren^C 01:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. --Karljoos (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the guy may be a mere gnome in his industry but he is a significant one who has been in the background of giants we all know and has made a notable difference in their careers. It will just take more work to find references, which is no reason to cop out and forget about him. Incubate this stub for a few years but don't make it necessary to resurrect it from scratch after somebody finally digs up something out of their archives to fill in some blanks. When it comes to the more private individuals in such a highly notable industry we have to expect it to take more time to flesh out an article on these people. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article says that "(...)he developed working relationships with songwriters as diverse as Bob Dylan, Ira Gershwin, Van Morrison, Jimi Hendrix ", but it doesn't say what kind of working relationship (songwriter? score proof reader? accompanist? the guy who carries the artists' briefcase?). It also estates that he worked for a company selling "(...) tens of millions of recordings by Stephen Stills, Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young), Firefall, Aretha Franklin, Joe Cocker, Bob Seger and many others", once more not saying what he did in the company (CEO? manager? receptionist?). Okay, he was the manager to Stephen Stills. This is interesting: "(he continued) to develop his music publishing interests, in 1991 Ken signed up-and-coming songwriter Frank Wildhorn to an exclusive music publishing deal. In the ensuing five years, Frank went on to become the most important composer on Broadway having successfully developed four musicals: Jekyll & Hyde, The Scarlet Pimpernel, The Civil War and Dracula"... what is his merit? He was neither the composer nor the libretist! I don't see how working near these well known artists makes him notable, and also there're no sources.--Karljoos (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 16:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a weak argument; we don't keep articles just on the offchance that, one day, someone may discover reliable sources. There are simply no references to even create a stub. Chzz ► 20:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with prejudice, I can't find any references to establish notability. I have to say that an article at IMDB authored by Anonymous does not give me any confidence that any reliable references will be found. I can't find anything that shows Gold Hill to be notable, it appears they sell sheet music. Rock and Sock apparently runs a women's boxing series. The link to the book on amazon has a bio blurb that he's a film historian, collector and author. This article doesn't smell good to me at all.... --Nuujinn (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's nothing to establish notability. The claims for notability in the article are all very nebulous. We have an abundance of name dropping with no indication of why the association to these people should be considered notable, and more importantly, there are no sources to support the claims. We have claims of industry awards with absolutely no information about what these awards are; we have only vague claims. These cannot be verified as there is no information to actually verify. We also have claims of multiple gold and platinum albums. Again, we have no details. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 19:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshin Roshi Ryu

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

Speedy (A7) tag removed by creator, but this page has too many third-party edits to make me comfortable with an A7 speedy. Martial arts school with no credible assertion of notability, borderline spam. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this page has been edited by and on behalf of Hoshin Roshi Ryu admin. We are a genunie ryuha attempting to provide accurate information to the general public about our Art, and coroborating evidence to this effect can be found by following the links listed on the web page. Recently there has been some spamming of the page by unknown 3rd parties which has caused repeated rewrites by us. If any further proof of our veracity is needed please email KHTC@nexicom.net. Or follow the links in the article. Thanks, Kumoichi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumoichi (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COI. No page on Wikipedia should be edited on behalf of its subject. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you will note that the deletion rationale makes no mention whatsoever of a doubt about the veracity of the article's contents. But the school's notability is not established or even asserted by the article in its current state. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just another martial arts school/style trying to get recognition by having an article on the English Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI It's an American-run outfit on American soil, formed by someone who's nickname was "American Ninja". K2709 (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI In this case "English" refers to the language. Papaursa (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's Glenn Morris's school, and people still buy books on his teachings despite him being deceased. A Glenn Morris article that talks about HRR rather than vice versa would arguably be safer, though I don't see anything here that a bit of cleanup wouldn't fix. K2709 (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only Glenn Morris that meets our notability guidelines is a decathlete who went on to take Johnny Weissmuller's place as Tarzan. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —72.20.219.166 (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC) 72.20.219.166 (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any independent references that show notability. 72.20.219.166 (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any assistance apreciated in helping conform to Wiki specifications. Could the party(ies) desiring deletion please clarify what information is lacking and I will endeavour to correct the deficiancy. Thanks, Kumoichi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumoichi (talk • contribs) 17:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects of an article need to be notable (see WP:GNG) and covered by reliable sources (WP:RS). Looking at the essay WP:MANOTE might provide you with some ideas. Papaursa (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:GNG and lacks coverage by independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Have added paragraph noting recognition by exterior bodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumoichi (talk • contribs) 21:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems with your additions. One is that they're about the founder, not the organization, and the second is that they're not referenced. You need sources that are independent of the organization or its founder. Papaursa (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This school doesn't seem notable on its own. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zois Galanopoulos

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

Contested PROD (and sorry about the 2nd prod, didn't notice the first one) as there is a claim of playing for a professional Greek team. No evidence of this is given - the two original refs seem very vague and ambiguous, and the latest one (the gippsland one) actually lists him as an amateur! So fails WP:ATHLETE and nowhere near the WP:GNG as far as I can see. The-Pope (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he played a senior match for Kavala F.C., he'll meet WP:ATH. But there is no source to support that, and I can't find a reliable source to support it. The "1 match" listed in the infobox could be inaccurate, or it could be a non-senior match. At this stage, we can't verify that he passes WP:ATH, so the article should be deleted. I'm quite comfortable with that because even if the "1 match" was verified, this guy's case for passing WP:ATH is as marginal as it could possibly be. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Can't find any verification either. I would keep it for say a week as I've notified the the person who created the article to ask them to find proof. One verified appearance in a competative match for an 18 year old would be enough for him to be considered notable. Cls14 (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to be fair, it's been tagged with notability and references needed tags since mid March and the originator has been notified with each PROD and AFD notice. Whilst he hasn't contributed at all since March 3, he's had more than enough chances. And I moved your notification from his User page to his User_talk page.The-Pope (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any evidence this guy has played in a fully-pro league, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE; also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 22:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the above comments. I also cannot find any evidence that he has played a pro match for Kavala, and he therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. There is also insufficient coverage to merit keeping this article under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The King of AZ

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

Album from artist that only has released on his own private label. None of the featured artists on the album seem to be notable. Gigs (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of sufficient notability. Rklawton (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS. But I really think this AfD should be combined with this one. Is it too late to do that? Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's OK with me if you want to do that. I nominated them separately in case the artist turned out to be notable and the album wasn't, or vice versa. Gigs (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. I also updated all the wikilinks. This thread should be speedily closed then. Erpert (let's talk about it) 21:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atllas

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

Musician with two albums, released only on his own label. Article claims an appearance on an MTV reality show, but no source is provided and I couldn't find one. Fails WP:MUSIC Gigs (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as cited. Also, I doubt the claimed appearances would indicate sufficient notability even if they were cited. Rklawton (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. I also added an album from this musician, per this discussion. Erpert (let's talk about it) 21:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Zia-ur-Rahman

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

Delete. Unreferenced, notability not confirmed by independent sources, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: NN army officer, notability not established. Possibly a vanity entry. --Ragib (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as a major general, the subject would possibly pass WP:MILPEOPLE (please note, this is not a binding policy though), however, there is not enough biographical to determine this. I've done a few internet searches and couldn't sift through the numerous hits I got for other similarly named individuals. Given that there are no sources then, I feel it fails WP:GNG. Finally, it is a completely unreferenced BLP, and thus unless a reliable source can be added, I feel it should be deleted. Happy to re-evaluate if the author is able to provide some sourcing that is verifiable. I would even accept on good faith citations to offline paper sources so long as they can be verified as existing (ISBNs, ISSNs etc) and page numbers are provided. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Landofvenus

AfDs for this article:

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

This was sent to AFD in 2006 and was kept. However the reasons for keeping were weak such as "if anime voice actors get their own pages surely adult movies deserve their own space as well.". It provides no evidence of notability. Its main claim to notablity being that it was one of the first amateur pornography websites to use steaming video and audio, however it provides no reliabe reference to establish this. EuroPride (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this seems pretty amateurish - Schrandit (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indicators of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eltham North Soccer Club

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

Association football club that does not appear to operate at a notable competitive level. WP:N and WP:ORG. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As far as I can tell, this club does not play in any national competion, and certainly isn't notable in any broader sense. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable club. --Carioca (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I consider myself somewhat of a non-league association football fanatic. My main question in cases like this is what level of the football pyramid a club is at. Wiki isn't too clear on the Australian association football pyramid. Cls14 (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't competed at a high-enough level yet. Giant Snowman 00:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to River City. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lee (River City)

AfDs for this article:

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

second AfD, since the first one was no consensus; fails WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG's comment at last AfD. This really doesn't even need to be here unless the merge has been tried and an editor has reverted it. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't see evidence that a merge was attempted, and it would be problematic to do so given the current format of that list. But, looking at this article, all I'm seeing is an unsourced plot summary, so I'm not sure how much could profitably be merged into a list. A redirect points the article to the list, and preserves the history if someone wants to make a go at a proper merge and expansion of the list. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- like Ultraexactzz, I cannot see anything that can be legitimately merged into anything since none of it is sourced. Reyk _YO! 08:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 19:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Golshan

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

Seems to have cash and was on a TV show; but neither are enough to establish notability. Appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources. That's the test to be applied. Mkativerata (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not only does this person appear to have no significant notability, but the biography section is extremely unencyclopedic in tone, is very self-promotional. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note the following has been placed on the article's talk page by an IP who has edited the article. I take this to be an argument to keep the article so am posting it here: "David Golshan has several article about him on the Internet. starred in an extremely high rated TV show, owns a notable website and fashion company and has a pretty ok size fan base. He definitely deserves a WIKI page." --Mkativerata (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The IP who posted that is User:76.205.150.14. Have you looked at this user's Contributions history? It is SOLELY comprised of him either updating Golshan's article or including mention of Golshan in other articles. It is obvious that 76.205.150.14 IS David Golshan. His contributions to his own article and others violate the "Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity" section of WP:NOTE and WP:CONFLICT, and his weighing in on whether or not he is notable is another violation of WP:CONFLICT. Though I recognize that Mkativerata was acting in good faith when he brought 76.205.150.14's comments here, the comments themselves have no place here.Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree; I just think it prudent to let the article's contributors have their say, even if their say is likely to be discounted for having no base in policy. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do we cite references from other websites on David Golshan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.150.14 (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Post the links here; other editors can evaluate them and, if they're reliable sources, they will be incorporated into the article. Or, you can add them yourself, if you like. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find adequate sources for this one; happy to change to Keep if those sources become apparent, but I can't show notability with what we've got.

UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did  14:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is Vladamir Dolce. Here are tons of adequate sources. Please review and advise.

http://www.iranian.com/main/2009/feb/david-golshan

http://www.persianesquemagazine.com/tag/david-golshan/

http://www.bravotv.com/the-millionaire-matchmaker/season-2/brett-jacobson-david-golshan

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/prweb/TA74RO4IGP43H70JU

http://crushable.com/entertainment/first-millionaire-matchmaker-client-a-real-funny-guy/

http://www.designtaxi.com/news.php?id=24086&month=2&year=2009

http://www.history-of-music.com/music-news/hollywood-producers-say-tinseltowns-newest-playboy-david-golshan-could-be-the-next-sasha-baron-cohen.html

www.HollywoodSuccess.com/press_releases.htm

2 More

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/item_is5I93dMhIFYZeOYGSNONL

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/02/review-the-mill.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.198.116 (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Closest thing to notability is one episode of a reality TV show with no dedicated coverage in reliable sources. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 02:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pal, look at all the sources. The guy is doing stand up at the Comedy Store in LA amongst other things. The guy is all over the place. I have seen wiki pages for people nobody has even heard of —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.198.116 (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this. Dancing parody video he did with 75,000 youtuve views http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBfthU7RJow Keep David Golshan Page

Page about David Golshan was updated.
Before deletion please consider that on wikipedia there are other pages similar to David's
for example: http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Maz_Jobrani http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Russell_peters

thank you for review,

Pavel (The-Alchemist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-alechmist (talk • contribs) 06:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the two articles that The-Alchemist brings up, these two subjects look like they are of questionable notability themselves, which I am not going to go into here, but even they have more reason to be encyclopedically notable than Golshan based on comparing their careers versus his, so bringing them up doesn't help the case to keep the article. As far as having been on one episode of Millionare Matchmaker goes, that is no criterion for notability. If we were to consider people notable for being featured as having hired Millionaire Matchmaker to help them find a date, we would have to consider anyone who was featured on HGTV "House Hunters" because they wanted to buy a house notable. The sources that 76.94.198.116 posted here (which are also many of the same sources in the reference section on the page in question) do not prove notablility, as some are stories about the Millionaire Matchmaker TV show that happen to mention the episode with Golshan, in which case my sentence immediately preceding this one applies, some are blogs, and some are press releases from "Hollywoodsuccess.com" or PRWeb (or reposts of these press releases). Hollywoodsuccess.com and PRWeb are for-pay promotional tools that actors and their agents use to promote their careers, so again we find Golshan's page failing to meet notability based on the "Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity" section of WP:NOTE. Some other "sources" are Funny or Die and youtube submissions, which are open-source websites that anyone can upload a video to, so having a video on them is no proof of notability. Transient mention in narrow-interest websites catering to the Iranian-American community or the clothing design industry are not sufficient to establish notability. I have been mentioned, even had articles I have written accepted for publication and printed in several trade magazines in my field, but I do not pretend to be notable for the purposes of Wikipedia notability. Remember that WP:NOTE says "notability is not temporary", and I would add that the potential to be notable in the future does not itself qualify as notability(WP:CRYSTAL). The acid test should be, if Golshan did nothing else with his life going forward besides what he has already done, would he be a significant enough figure to be included here in 10 years?Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to mmyers statement that the other comedian pages are "these two subjects look like they are of questionable notability themselves". If those other 2 are "questionable" as well, then me should just go ahead and delete every person on Wikipedia who is not starring in the latest blockbuster feature film grossing over $100,000,000. The preceding statement about comparing Golshan Mmyers1976| is absurd. Golshan did not pay anything for the "Millionaire Matchmaker", they paid him^{[citation needed]}. Welcome to Hollywood. All reality ahows are scripted my friend. On a small side note, it was one of the highest rated hours ever for the television station that broadcast it. His name is constantly googled (you can look it up on Google Trends). In addition, he is working as a stand up comedian in his field and own several highly successful ventures outside of show business. 90% of the people on Wiki are not going to be remembered in 10 years if they did nothing else. Think about it and dont deny the many many people who want to read about David Golshan on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesKennedy1965 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Kennedy, let's all please remember that Civility (WP:CIVIL) is one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, and as such, hyperbolic statements like "then me(sic) should just go ahead and delete every person on Wikipedia who is not starring in the latest blockbuster feature film grossing over $100,000,000," and statements with a sarcastic tone like "Welcome to Hollywood," and "All reality ahows are scripted my friend," are not necessary or constructive. Remember that we are all working on the same goal here, to improve the encyclopedia. From the tone of your comment, it sounds like you are getting a little emotionally invested in the article and this AfD, and it may be helpful to step back and take a breath and a break. Golshan not being considered notable at this time is not the end of the world, nor is it any reflection of his worth as a person (which is all I was saying when I compared him to myself). It also does not mean Golshan won't be notable in the future. Remember Viewpoint 1 of WP:NORUSH. There will be plenty of opportunity to develop an article for Golshan in the future if his career(s) develop to the point where he will be notable. But right now just being a comedian or a successful small businessman (or both) doesn't qualify one for notability, and Google trends don't meet the requirement for "significant coverage" as discussed in WP:NOTE. As you are new to editing Wikipedia and may not fully understand the standards for notability yet, I really recommend you read WP:NOTE, and I hope it will give you a better understanding of where those of us who are voting Delete are coming from. It's nothing personal to Golshan or to you or anyone else who is supportive of his article.Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and promotional spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no one support deletion aside from the nom JForget 01:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Santos

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

Deprodded article. No evidence of notability, and unsourced. EuroPride (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per the nom - no evidence of notability, and unsourced. Codf1977 (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Keep - notability has now been established. Codf1977 (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Secondary references only. - Gabby 12:12, 04 April 2010 (PST)
Keep and tag for additional sources. Notable to the Phillipines is notable for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep finalist of Pinoy Big Brother: Double Up, a notable reality contest, and an actor. Just because he isn't known outside of the Philippines doesn't mean he isn't notable. he is notable here, so he is notable for Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "finalist of Pinoy Big Brother: Double Up" - Where is the consensus that being a big brother contestant warrants an article? Discussions such as this one seem to suggest otherwise. EuroPride (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually I voted keep because he is notable as an actor, not becuase he is a finalist. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he is also the contestant on StarStruck season 3, she is formerly aired on GMA-7! - Gabby 19:20, 06 April 2010 (PST)

Keep notability established. Evalpor (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Pinoy Big Brother: Double Up no notability outside of appearance on reality show. comment The only 3rd party coverage hardly seems to meet "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" - flyby mentions of winning ~~3rd~~4th place with the most in depth coverage consisting of the additional information about the name of the charity he donated his winnings to. Active Banana (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, the references that above editors claim made him notable within the Phillipines are very trivial, giving him the most minimal of attention. Also, he isn't even mentioned in some of the articles of shows the article claims he is involved with, which suggests the information is false or he has extremely minor roles within them. I feel this discussion was closed prematurely. EuroPride (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Hogg

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

Football player who does not satisfy WP:N or WP:ATHLETE guidelines because he has only played in the semi-professional league in Northern Ireland. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - player is competing for a club in a top-level league in Europe. Eldumpo (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. A top level of a small nation is not sufficient to satisfy criteria. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 10:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although the IFA Premiership League is the highest level in Northern Ireland, the criterion is still going to be whether the team itself is "fully professional". The football/soccer project people have interpreted WP:ATHLETE under [Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability], as including players who "Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional." I don't know whether Crusaders FC is fully professional, or one of many semi-pro teams in a semi-pro league. Mandsford (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only team in that league that carry any fully professional players are Linfield, who have about six or seven fully pro but the rest of the squad are semi-pro. four f/t players in 2006 - BBC All other players in the NI league are semi pro. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was under the impression that NI football is not fully professional, and it appears from the commenters above that that impression is correct. On that basis, he fails to meet WP:ATH. Lets not extend WP:ATH any further than its current absurd breadth by allowing in all "top-level leagues in Europe". Andorra, San Marino, anyone? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He fails WP:ATH. --Carioca (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The notability guide for athletes is woeful! People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis, except for those that participated only in competitions that are themselves non-notable. It simply isn't very clear what it's on about. As there is no professional league in Northern Ireland (from what you say above) then he is effectively non-league and is at the highest level of football in Northern Ireland. If he goes then every single player who has played only in non-league football will have to go (unless they are noted for something else) which isn't viable. Cls14 (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. With regards to the comments by Cls14, the fact that there is no professional league in Northern Ireland, doesn't change the fact that he is competing in a league competition and isn't fully professional. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 00:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep article improved, nomination withdrawn. AniMate 16:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzanians in the United Kingdom

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

Article only contains population figure, which is covered at Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom, and a statement about ethnicity referenced by a broken link. Can't find coverage in reliable sources to establish notability of Tanzanians in the UK as a group. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have scannned Google for information and sources that could constitute a good article worth keeping, I will begin the expansion now. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've found some good sources, so I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great, does that mean the deletion tag can be removed from the article page. I have also recently added the section on culture and community.Stevvvv4444 (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep based on improvements and withdrawal of nomination prior to any delete comments being posted. Mandsford (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adsvase

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

Non-notable advertising company. Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 08:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No obvious notability. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not Notable, states that the founder is Vimal Kumar, and the person writing the article, VimalKumar100, would appear to have a COI. I was intending to nominate this article yesterday, and even put a warning notice on this person's talk page, but a Twinkle Error occurred. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 01:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Development and Education Programme for Daughters and Communities

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

fails WP:ORG. 2 gnews hits.[8], one of which seems a self published account of someone who worked there. those wanting to keep must show evidence of actual significant in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a stub. The organization clearly does important work and is funded by various NGOs. Article needs expansion, not deletion. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The organization clearly does important work and is funded by various NGOs is not a criterion for notability. please provide actual coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Twenty-three Google Books results, most of which provide significant coverage about the organisation. Though it isn't the the books' primary subject, I think the amount of coverage makes up for the possible lack of depth. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

most of the books are not indepth coverage but mentions which verify its existence. if it was a book with a full chapter on Development and Education Programme for Daughters and Communities that would count a lot lot more. can any of these mentions you found in gbooks be actually incorporated as references in the article? LibStar (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn in light of improvementsLibStar (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Child Watch Phuket

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

fails WP:ORG. hardly any coverage. [9]. a few gnews hits does not mean notability. LibStar (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How much news coverage in English would one reasonably expect for a charity operating in Thailand? A general search produces enough hits. Charity is obviously doing important work. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:GOOGLEHITS. doing "important work" is not a criterion for notability. If there is coverage in Thai then I expect a Thai user to come up with some sources, we cannot automatically assume there is coverage in Thai though. LibStar (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on coverage from independent and reliable sources, as noted by Luckett about Phuket. Because Phuket is a popular tourist destination for visitors from around the world, the charitable organization seeks donations from people worldwide. Mandsford (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs some developement but its a very noted organization and has a place here in wikipedia.Susanbryce (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The organization is often featured in newspapers, magazines and on television networks and works in with some overseas charities. Most news in thailand is in Thai, but there is references there, just needs some patience and development for the article.Susanbryce (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it would be better if your original keep vote said this and refer to actual weblinks. LibStar (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be even better not to tell people what we think they "should have said" in their initial comments. Mandsford (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are about genuine arguments for keeping or deletion, not generic statements or weak arguments. my statement was supposed to encourage Susanbryce to be more detailed in future. LibStar (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep We want more coverage of ref'd articles on organizations in 3rd World places. The fact that this afd is based on original research, ie an extremely rudimentary Google in English search merely confirms that this should be speedily closed as keep. If we have no English refs Thai refs are great, remember we are producing an encyclopedia in English not one about about the English speaking world. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 15:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith please. It's a legitimate nomination, and any suggestion that this is motivated by a bias against non-English speaking nations is unwarranted. I probably disagree with LibStar more than I agree with him, but he's no less open-minded than you or I. Thanks. Mandsford (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm I certainly wasn't implying bad faith on LibStar's part, just poor judgment and I have explained why I think his judgment is wrong, especially the inherent original research involved in googling. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 20:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can read the Thai language, you possess an ability that most English speakers do not. However, that's no reason to criticize a person for limiting his search to languages with which he is familiar. I confess that I don't even know the Thai alphabet, let alone the language. If presented with the statement "ცნობილი ადამიანები – მუჰამედ ალი, ჯ.გრიფიტი, რობერტ უორენი" I couldn't begin to pronounce it. In that you can do more than the "rudimentary Google in English search", I hope that you'll use that knowledge to add sources to the article. Mandsford (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I cant read Thai; here we are talking about principles; I would never base a decision to afd solely on a google search on google.com; I might for instance do site specific searches for possible sites such as Thailand media in English or other prominent sites covering Thailand in English before afding. LibStar does many afd calls which is fine but in this case I think it was a bad call. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 00:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have nominated this if it had a well sourced article in Thai. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the strong consensus emerging to keep the article even without a good Thai ref your comment seems unreasonable; you should perhaps re-assess how you choose which articles to afd as refs in any language are perfectly acceptable; the fact that only a tiny minority understand something is no different for foreign languages than it is for many scientific concepts; our purpose is to educate and verifiability does not mean every 12 yr old kid has to understand something or it is removed. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 01:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the original article was barely referenced and my own searches did not find anything. the first keep vote was based on WP:GOOGLEHITS and the 2nd keep vote did not add references. I will close this as keep in good faith but this does not mean articles from non English speaking countries are exempt from being nominated for deletion. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as above. Snow due in Thailand, soon. Jack Merridew 01:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 19:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beyoncé Knowles songs

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

While the article has a significant amount of sources, the article is unnecessary, as she has a Discography which lists charted songs, and songs which have never charted are listed on the albums appropriate articles. Gabe19 (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Discography. Editor was probably unaware of standard naming conventions. Eusebeus (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The artist is extremely well known, has tons of songs released (all of which are referenced) and all are divided into the right sections and categories. The discography obviously doesn't cover this material so an extra page is needed. If something is not referenced correctly than either delete or find a better reference. If artists like Rihanna & Britney Spears get a "List of ... Songs" page than why wouldn't this artist? Theuhohreo (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Hey, hey, hey, I think someone is making a huge mistake here! You can not create an article or fight for it using as an excuse other articles of sb or something else. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Every case is different, and you can't use as an argument "why does he/she have an article about..." Besides, you do not create articles just because an artist that you obviously don't like have something that "your" artist doesn't have. You are the same user who create the page, so I am guessing that you created it based on List of Rihanna songs and List of Britney Spears songs . Your argument need to be reasons why keep it, without involve something else. Fortunato luigi (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm didn't create the page because of other artists, I'm saying that if this "List of... songs" can be merged with the discography (which is stupid to even think about, because it shouldn't...) than whats stopping it from happening with all of artists "List of... songs" for example, the artists i listed above. Discography is for charting songs/singles and this pages is for listing every song an artists has done (soundtrack, singles, album tracks, leaked songs etc...) and provide trivia for songs (like the sampled material section in the page). It can not be any more clearer that the two pages should not be merged... Theuhohreo (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree. If you're going to merge this page to the artist's discography than you'll have to for all the other ones too. List of songs pages are needed for popular artists!!! 68.160.198.159 (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I wasn't aware that both of those artists had those pages, both of those should be deleted too. It just makes absolutely no sense to me to have pages like this. Yes, she is a popular singer today, I'll admit that, but to have a an article such as this is unnecessary. Gabe19 (talk) Gabe19 (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The discography does give information on songs that have charted, but this page is completely different from that so why merge??? This page is information on songs officially/unofficially released by Beyoncé which is needed because of so many albums, singles, soundtracks, etc... released! 68.160.198.159 (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- "Completely Different?" Not "Completely", In some ways is is but it still lists all songs that were released, and charted, that's what the discography is for. Gabe19 (talk) Gabe19 (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any reason to merge, as a matter of principle, discographies and lists of songs into a larger article, particularly in the case of a bestselling artist. Some of don't really want to click on "the album's appropriate articles" until we find what we're looking for, hence it's not uncommon to separate a list of songs from a discography. Technically, a discography would be about the "discs" that are sold as albums and singles. I know that the argument can be made that a description of the album could be expanded to list all of the songs on the album, but it's often the case that a song appears on more than one album. Discography is the business side, list of songs is the art side, the article about the artist is the news side. That's the way it's been done, and there's nor reason to change it. Mandsford (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Not only do discographies list released and charted songs, albums, and the like, many list everything that this article contains, making it an unnecessary article to begin with. Her Discography contains song that have charted, collaborations that she has partaken in, soundtrack songs she has partaken in, all which are included is this article. The songs which which are listed under the unreleased section of the article, and read "I Am... Sasha Fierce outtake/B'Day outtake/Dangerously In Love outtake" could easily be included in those albums articles. Songs that have no article to themselves, or weren't on any album could easily be put in her discography. Songs with sampled material are already included in the appropriate albums articles, and The live songs could be included on the appropriate tours' article, making this entire article very unnecessary. Gabe19 (talk) Gabe19 (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree- Their is really no reason to merge both these articles into one page. It would either overload the discography page or overload the artists albums pages with "unreleased song". Their is no problem with the way things are now so I see no reason in changing it now. Theuhohreo (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Why is this article important? The songs listed here are songs that are listed on the albums article or the movies articles. This is a really unnecessary article cuz all those songs appear on other articles, and the "new ones" are outtakes or commercial songs or things like those, which, by the way, ar pure trivia, making it unnecessary. Furthermore, the references have links to download them on a illegal way, we should be avoiding that kind of things. Fortunato luigi (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure not to "vote" twice (it's happened to all of us at one time or another). There's no limit to how many comments we're allowed to make, but as a rule, only the initial opinion should be labelled "keep" or "delete", and anything else is prefaced by the word "comment". It makes it easier for the administrator to get an idea how many people are participating in the discussion. Thanks. Mandsford (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- Artist is popular with obviously a ton of songs. List of songs pages seem to organize all music done by the artist(s) (in general) so if an artist has tons of songs that they deserve a significant page, like this. References seem to be in order and everything is already set up fine... Just leave it!74.72.160.180 (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Her popularity isn't at debate here, it's the page and it's content. All of the material included in this page is already on her discography and album's articles. And BTW, she doesn't have "tons of songs" Gabe19 (talk) Gabe19 (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-Absolutely none of this material is covered in the discography. YES the discography does list songs that have charted as singles (and other charted songs) and soundtrack singles, but the list of songs page isn't for charted songs its for all songs in general released by the artist. Both pages seem like two different pages for different things.68.160.200.128 (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment- "Absolutely none of this material is covered in the discography."- Really? NONE of this is in her discography? Released songs, Collaborations, Soundtrack Songs are all in her discography, Sampled material and Unofficially released songs are on the appropriate albums articles, Live songs are on the appropriate tours articles, leaving only the Unreleased songs, Leaked demos/working titles, TV commercials songs, and Recorded material left, half of which don't even have references so it's questionable if it's valid material, therfore making this article very unnecessary. Those four sections I mentioned can easily be added to her discography. Gabe19 Gabe19 (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment- The only thing covered in the discography is Charted songs! THATS IT! and thats really all the discography really needs to cover. The discography only has charted soundtrack singles not the songs that haven't charted which are included on this page. The leaked/unofficially released songs aren't even listed on the albums. And everything including TV commercials can easily be referenced. I really can not imagine why merging the two articles would even cross anyones mind... Theuhohreo (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment- Not always, many contain songs that have never charted. The leaked/unofficially released songs that were recorded for the appropriate albums should be listed on those albums pages. If everything else can be "easily referenced", reference it. Also, many of the references that the article contains are from blogs, which aren't considered Relaible Sources, making this article unnecessary. Gabe19 (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment- But if they contain songs that never charted than that kinda goes against the whole concept of a discography, doesn't it? All the T.V. commercials are referenced now and what if some of the leaked songs were just released during a recording session and not as a leftover from an album? Than were do those go? Their are some cases were the two pages should be merged but it just makes more sense and makes it all easier to keep it the way it is now... 68.160.200.128 (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment- Just because the T.V. Commercials are referenced now doesn't mean the entire article should be kept. Besides the T.V. Commercial songs are already posted on her Videography, making this article unnecessary. Leftover songs from a particular album should be posted on that album's article.Gabe19 (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I can not believe this is actually up for discussion. The page organizes every song released by the artist, not only singles (like the discography) but all songs ever released by the artist. The discography definitely does not do that! Only charted songs. Stop being stupid and wasting everyones time and leave the page as is....... 74.72.160.180 (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- "Stop being stupid and wasting everyones time", Gee, that's a great way to close out a comment isn't it? And all songs that have been released by this particular artist are already here on Wikipedia, posted on the album's articles.Gabe19 (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I'm getting kid of tired reading the same comments, and posting the same responses to the posts here. So here is a more complex Post:

All of the "released songs" posted here are already posted on her albums articles, Dangerously in Love, B'Day, and I Am... Sasha Fierce.

Half of the "Unofficially released songs" don't have references, and the ones that do should be on the album's article that it was recorded for.

Collaborations that have been done should be in the Beyonce Knowles Template, as that is how other artists Templates are.

None of the Soundtrack Songs have references, and some are already listed in her Discography.

All of the "TV commercials songs" are already posted in her Videography, just transfer the references to that page.

Only two The nine Cover versions have references, The "Proud to be an American" reference is a picture (is that even a reference?), and the "Fever" song should be in her Template, under "Other songs", as that is the case with other artists templates.

"Sampled Material", once agin, is already on the appropriate albums' articles, and None of the "Live songs" have references, but should be posted on her Concert Tours Page, as they were performed for her tours.

After all of this, there is nothing left in this article, making it an unnecessary article.Gabe19 (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I'm kinda hoping this settles it cause this Article for deletion page is getting quite ridiculous... I'm just gonna respond in the order u gave above^

Yes that's true that all officially released songs are on the album pages of the artist.

The 'Unofficially Released Songs' are all legit, but you're right, should be referenced and I can get on that. But the main thing about these songs is that they are just from recording sessions. Some of them are unknown from which album they are from, and I honestly have no idea who put the "(leftover from "Blah blah" album)". So we can't really add the songs to the album pages if they're not left over from an album. And I thought we couldn't compare what we do with this artist as what happens with other artist pages, because I got bitched at for that earlier -_-

Only collaborations that have charted are listed on the discography, unless they're put under "Other album appearances" which could be deleted to clean-up the discography page and left here as-is.

I figured the soundtrack songs didn't have to be referenced since they're from an official album (like the track-listing from artists album pages) but if needed it can easily be obtained... And again only charted soundtrack songs are on the discography.

The videography is for video releases and that part of the page is for the songs used in commercials. Not every commercial done by the artist has a separate song so only if it does it's covered here.

Covered songs can easily be referenced.

If the "Live Cover Versions" don't need referencing on the tour pages than why do we need them here??? Also listing the sampled songs here can clean-up the album pages (as some albums like I Am... Sasha Fierce & B'Day are already over-loaded).

I say "can easily be referenced" because if you already have it set in your mind that you want to delete this page than what would be the point to go and reference them... This pages "takes a load off" (for lack of a better phrases) of other pages that already cover so much and would list this page under the "See Also" articles. I know her popularity isn't up for discussion here, but I'm going to say this anyway in general about all artists with "List of... songs" pages. If an artist is well known, popular and has been around for quite some time than they are going to accumulate a lot of songs. That's were pages like this come in handy again. Even songs written by the artist can be covered here instead of creating a "Beyoncé Knowles writing discography" page... Theuhohreo (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment- "this Article for deletion page is getting quite ridiculous..." I don't think so...

"Yes that's true that all officially released songs are on the album pages of the artist."- ok, than that information listed on this page is redundant.

If the 'Unofficially Released Songs' can be referenced, reference them if this page is kept. and when you created this page, 7 of the songs you listed said "(certain album) outtake", meaning you you put that information there; and I never said we couldn't compare other artist pages with each other.

Collaborations that charted/didn't chart should be placed in her Template, that's how other artists Templates are, making that info posted here, redundant.

Soundtrack Songs should be in her Template as well, under 'Soundtrack Albums', albums that contain any song she has partaken in.

Her Videography is for everything pertaining to film, from movies to music videos and commercials, including songs.

If covered songs can "easily be referenced", reference them, if this article is kept.

The Live Songs listed here is redundant information again, since it's listed on her Tours Page.

Sampled Songs should be listed on the albums articles anyways, even if their "overloaded", it pertains to the albums articles.

Any "List of... songs" pertaining to any artist should be deleted too, information on those pages is redundant, as it's already listed on another article. Information put on "List of... songs" articles is redundant information that can easily be found on Wikipedia, depending on the album, making articles like this unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabe19 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Mandsford. Rlendog (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midori Gotō

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

This barely referenced BLP has very little information regarding whether or not the subject is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia per WP:N or WP:MUSIC. There are various awards and a single mention in the New York Times, but beyond that I cannot find anything about the subject that shows that the woman is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, at least what is in the article currently.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it seems she is some sort of peace envoy and is mentioned in the same breath as the likes of Barenboim, Michael Douglas, George Cloony, and Yo-Yo Ma, News24 USA Today. She is also a respected violinist NY Times. CNN describe both aspects of her career here: Midori Goto: From prodigy to peace ambassador. Article obviously needs some work --Jubilee♫clipman 12:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - I have worked a little on the article to provide references and to update the information. The naming as a UN Ambassador for Peace was not even mentioned in the article before I added the information. Will work on the article some more soon to tidy it up and provide more refs from the many I have found on Google. Not convinced nom followed WP:BEFORE --Jubilee ♫clipman 15:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs work, but can be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuujinn (talk • contribs) 16:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Unless an entry in a real encyclopedia is not enough to qualify for an entry in an encyclopedia purporting to cover "the sum of human knowledge". Surely the nominator checks Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians before making nominations on music subjects? Look under "M" for "Midori".

"(b Osaka, 25 Oct 1971). Japanese violinist. At four she began violin lessons with her mother, Setsu Goto. In 1980 she was given a scholarship to study with Dorothy Delay at the Aspen Music School in the USA. Two years later she entered Delay's class at the Juilliard School in New York, where she also worked with Pinchas Zukerman. In 1982 she made her début with the New York PO under Zubin Mehta; she then toured Asia with the orchestra. The following year she played Paganini's Caprices before President Reagan on a televised Christmas show. After continuing her studies at the Professional Children's School in New York, she graduated in 1990 and began her international career. In 1993 she performed the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto at the Proms in London. In 1994 she won the Suntory Award in Japan. Midori's repertory includes all the major concertos, many of which she has recorded; but her tone as heard in the concert hall is small and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that she is a creation of the compact disc age. Her interpretations are sound but rather bland. She plays the 1722 ‘Jupiter’ Stradivari and the 1735 ‘Ex-David’ Guarneri del Gesù."

Really, this AfD takes the cake as the most inappropriate I've seen this year, at the very least. Dekkappai (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am sorry. Our article on her is pisspoor. So I made a mistake. Big fucking deal.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryu Goto

AfDs for this article:

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

Two years ago this article was kept at AFD. Since then, there has really been no progress in the page other than intermittent updates of the subject's discography. This page has been unreferenced for over two years, with one reference being his website and the other being a news article announcing a performance of his. I do not see this qualifying for WP:MUSIC or our general notability guidelines. In addition, most of the page was a copyvio off of his official website (and is repeatedly being added back by a user). The most notability he has is by being the brother of Midori, but her notability is questionable and I have put her page up for AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was the article prior to my blanking of all copyrighted and paraphrased content.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, not even on his discography. Violates the policy on notability. Unless there is a previous version to revert to, I'm sticking with delete from now on. Minima c (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

While I can always understand the concerns of legitimacy and detail for any Wikipedia entry, I do believe that in this case, the person putting up both Ryu Goto and Midori Goto's pages for AfD completely wrong is both counts, and frankly is abusing the ability of people to edit Wikipedia entries. A quick search of the web seems to confirm he has a pattern of just this sort of abuse, with little or no real justification. As to the level of notability of either Ryu Goto or Midori Goto, this is not subject to debate. Both Ryu Goto and Midori Goto are among the top classical violinists of their respective generations, with numerous CDs, DVDs, endorsements and major concerts and tours to their credit, not to mention a large, growing following of fans. Arbitrary AfDs by people with an agenda beyond good editing of Wikipedia articles are to the detriment of the general public, and to the detriment of those of us attempting to ensure the honest, true and legitimate posting of basic biographies of known public figures.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconic (talk • contribs)
- Whatever you read about me on these other websites that you talk about is not true. And you were adding a copy-pasted portion of Ryu Goto's biography from his website (all of it in fact) in all of your edits to the article that were not removing the AFD tag or other tags on the page. Neither Ryu nor Midori are notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. The fact that their pages have remained on this project for so long is an oversight on our part.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ryulong, you're simply wrong, and I think you should consider carefully your choice of words as you don't speak for all of Wikipedia. In any event, I'm escalating this entire dialog to others on Wikipedia who are in a far better position than you to be fair arbiters as to the notability of either Ryu or Midori.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconic (talk • contribs)
    - That is what this page is for. To let the community decide whether or not the page should be deleted. And as someone with an emotional (or economic) attachment to the subjects of these articles, you are no better an "arbiter" that you phrase for the inclusion of these two biographies. And please remember to sign your comments and do not change the comments of others. There was a 13 minute break in time between my last edit and yours. There was no reason for you to have undone all of my edits between my addition of your comment here and my last edit.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ryulong, other than issues of bad referencing, which are eminently fixable, explain why you think neither Ryu or Midori are notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. What are your credentials in classical music? Or, on a broader basis, what is your argument based on? My probity or interest doesn't change the fact that both are known public figures in classical music, and you are doing them, Wikipedia and their fans a disservice by arbitrarily locking up their entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconic (talk • contribs) 06:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The fact that we have nothing to show that they are notable within their fields. That is the onus of inclusion, and both of these pages do not meet it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That is simply silly, Ryulong. A simple look at their websites proves their work, their fan bases. If you care enough to AfD you should care enough to do your research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconic (talk • contribs) 07:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Anyone can have a website and anyone can have a fan base. We don't have a page for every single garage band from MySpace, and we shouldn't have a page on every single classical violinist.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        you again refer to "we," which is disingenuous. I'm not sure if you have an issue with Ryu because he happens to have a name similar to your user name, but the fact is, when, like Ryu, you are debuting at Carnegie Hall, you consistently chart as one of the top ten classical artists in east Asia and the EU, are the spokesperson for Japan Railways and had a ten-year running reality TV show based on your life on a major Japanese network, you're famous. That's reality. And its pretty basic that you should be able to have your basic Wikipedia entry unencumbered by the efforts of one single editor who knows nothing of classical music. You are only being counterproductive at this point. Mark Frieser 07:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconic (talk • contribs)
        Obviously when I say "we" or "our" I refer to the Wikipedia project as a whole. Also, your accusation that I want to get the page deleted because both his name and my pseudonym are similar is a ridiculous thought. This should not be an issue that you keep harping on. And nothing at all on either page suggests that either of them are celebrities of world renown. They are unreferenced biologies of living persons which are the worst articles possible on Wikipedia. Knowing anything about the subject of an article does not prevent me from saying it should be deleted based on how the article looks or removing a complete copyright violation that you have put onto the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ryulong, you have made me feel less that I am dealing with an editor and more like someone from the 1990's newsgroup alt.flame. Why do I say this? Frankly you would never have seen this if you did not have a flag on every time that there was a "Ryu" reference. I don't think you like his name, and a result you not only marked his page for deletion, but you did the same for his sister, who's page has never had an issue on Wikipedia. This makes it seem like you have a personal agenda and are not being objective. That may not be the case, but I'm sure you could see it could be construed that way. That notwithstanding, if there is an issue with references and copyvio - this is certainly something that can be easily fixed. In any case, I'm done arguing with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconic (talk • contribs)
        What utter bullshit. You are new to this encyclopedia, so clearly you should take a close look at WP:AGF and other policies. The only thing that's remotely true about your statement is the fact that the only reason I was notified of this article's existance is because I got notified in the IRC recent changes feed when someone (you) added a large amount of content to a page with "Ryu" in the title (which was all copyrighted). I am not seeking to get this page deleted because it has "Ryu" in the title. I'm seeking to get it deleted because the man is not notable for inclusion in this encyclopedia. I fucked up with sending Midori's article to AFD and that's been fixed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ryulong, I may be new to the editorial process on Wikipedia, but you brought a nuke to a fistfight when you AfD'd Ryu's entry, as well as that of Midori (which there was no excuse to AfD whatsoever). It is a ham-fisted abuse of Wikipedia policy, and you know it. Argue all you want, but that's the simple fact. Also, there's not need to get into name calling and expletives. Why you didn't just request additional references, or a rewrite is beyond me. Also, as has been amply proven and debated here, your probity in regards to Ryu's notability in the Classical music field has been amply repudiated. As to the copyvio, why didn't you contact me? Perhaps I had permission to use it... but instead you decided an AfD was the best course of action. --Mark Frieser 18:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconic (talk • contribs)

Delete: Despite the protestations above, no evidence has been put forward that this meets the notability guidelines. No new sources have been introduced. We are not disputing they exist; what we need is reliable, secondary coverage. If you cannot provide that, we cannot retain the article. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PeterSymonds Theresa Knott | token threats 09:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PeterSymonds. Eusebeus (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ - I have tried for the past half hour to source this article and find myself frustrated by paywalls, article abtracts that don't quite get to the part where he is mentioned, and numerous other obstacles. Does that prove he is non-notable? Hard to say. For now, all I can offer is an abstract from an article in The Spectator in 2000 [10] and an article from Taiwan Times [11]. Whether thay are enough to establish notability is hard to say. It compicates matters that he present version of the article is copyvio, also. On balance, because of the strict policy regarding BLPs, this artilce probably ought to be deleted. It can always be recreated in a few years time when he gains far wider international recognition --Jubilee♫clipman 11:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Reconsidering~~ - sources added by other editors have started to verify the facts stated in the article and some of those facts do seem to suggest some notability, viz: "He has played internationally with the London Symphony, the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra, the Shanghai Philharmonic, and the National Symphony in Washington, D.C." However, many non-notable performers perform with famous orchestras at some point in their career, so we need more yet, IMO. BTW, the fact that his sister is world-renowned is irrelevent: WP:NOTINHERITED --Jubilee♫clipman 16:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strong Keep - article now sourced enough to satify WP:SIGCOV, WP:MUSIC, and almost any other notability standard you care to throw at it. Hats off to Nuujinn who not only sourced the article but also massively expanded it in the process of rewriting it entirely --Jubilee ♫clipman 00:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone here - what the issue is from my perspective is not whether there is notability established at this point, but whether it could be - and I quote the notability guidelines: "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, it is important to consider not only whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present." Though editors subsequent to Ryulong have posted their findings, I do not believe their search of articles and sitings were extensive enough to warrant a notability challenge. For example - a search of "Ryu Goto violin press" on Google brings back more than 2,370 entries, the vast majority of which are press, so I'm at a loss as to why others here can only find two references in the press. In any case, as this article was not a final draft, and was in the midst of revisions, I believe it was premature to flag for deletion. Moreover, the fact of that matter is, unless evidence is provided to the contrary, that none of the editors above could be considered experts in the realm of classical music, which, by default, should disqualify said editors from having any final decision as to the notability of the subject matter or the subject. Certainly, the need for more references, sources, fixing copyvio are all valid points in terms of edits needed, and these changes will be made to this article. That said, there has been little proof that any of the editors suggesting deletion could be considered experts on classical music, and as a result are unqualified to judge the notability of any classical artist.12:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconic (talk • contribs)
- Eusebeus and I are experts: that I can 100% assure you of. I am the coordinator for the Contemporary music project and have a degree in music. Eusebeus is heavily involved in many CM projects and is highly respected by those projects. I never said I could not find articles: I said that I was unable to find articles that I could actually read. And my vote was only "weak". Provide 3 or 4 independent reliable sources from the 2,370 you mentioned and we might get somewhere. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 13:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't two thousand sources: It's two hundred[12] -- if you're looking for this person's name ("Ryu Goto") instead of any page containing two other people, one named "Ryu ___" and the other named "___ Goto", and if you bother to click through to the end, instead of assuming that the notoriously inaccurate estimate is right. A gnews search provides exactly one hit, to a borderline source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sourced by magic... I want in on the secret! --Jubilee ♫clipman 00:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment This is a tempest in a teacup, I ask that everyone please take a pause for the cause. I do not believe that expertise is a required attribute to ascertain notability. I spent about five minutes and found a half dozen promising freely accessible articles. I do not think this fellow is very notable, but I do think he meets the threshold and have begun rewriting the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point: the requirement is to be able to source not to be able to criticise his interpretation of Sibelius' Violin Concerto or whatever. That said, I'll dig around some more. We still have 6 days, after all, as the article was only nom'ed early this morning (UTC) --Jubilee ♫clipman 13:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we certainly have time. I took a quick pass, added some text and a few inline citations and a few external links that have some promise--it's rough since I'm in a hurry to get out today, but a start.... --Nuujinn (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - I will do my part for providing sourced information and articles that will provide unbiased information, including a discography, TV/Film appearances, etc. I'll follow your lead on this Nuujinn. - Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconic (talk • contribs) 14:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep. PeterSymonds says it well. AfD is a simple equation really: if there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources, the article should be deleted. That equation is a logical consequence of an encyclopaedia that strives for verifiability and accuracy. I can be convinced to change my mind by the sourcing, but at this stage, deletion appears warranted. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we are all reasonably familiar with the usual standard; the question is whether sufficient sources exist. The article currently cites eleven independent reliable sources. Is that enough for you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Thanks for calling me out on that mistake; I'd watchlisted this and when I returned hadn't noticed the improvements. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hi everyone". I want to thank all of your for your diligence and assistance on this entry. I am somewhat a n00b in terms of the submitting and writing of Wikipedia articles, so I would like to ask your forgiveness and patience for any mistakes on my part. later today, I am going to attempt - in the right way - to add more sources, content, etc. to the Ryu Goto entry, and I welcome your input and comments as I want to work with all of you to ensure that this entry is as relevant to Wikipedia as possible and meets Wikipedia editing standards. Thank you again. --Mark Frieser 14:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Disconic (talk)
  - All help is welcome! The sweep I made was to find news sources and I only added enough prose to act as a framework for that. In particular, I think more coverage on critical reception of his work is needed, and that falls well outside my area of expertise. Also, more biographical data would help. If you want some time uninterrupted to work on the article, I might suggest using the Guild of Copy Editors in use template to mark the article, that can help us keep each other out of our hair. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks Nuujinn! I believe I can provide the biographical data and the critical reception links as I do have some primary sources for this. I will do as you have suggested on the "GOCE in use" template later today (I am not going to get back to this until the afternoon my time). --Mark Frieser 14:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Disconic (talk)

Keep The article meets WP:MUSIC (criteria 1, 4, 5). I do not understand the arguments given above where it's stated that the article was "unreferenced" or that there were no references given. This was blatantly false. At the time this article was nominated for AfD, there were two references. Neither were probably enough to establish notability as per Wikipedia guidelines, but both gave indications of his stature in the classical music world, and should have been clues that other sources are out there (I mean, how many folks are there with the credentials of undertaking worldwide soloist tours with major orchestras and are signed to Deutsche Grammaphon?). And lo and behold, a few minutes of research gave up http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22ryu+goto%22&cf=all, which includes reviews from the Washington Post, LA Times, among other major newspapers (someone with LexisNexis/ProQuest access will probably have to add those) as well as http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=982743&lang=eng_news from Taiwan's version of the AP, which speaks to his fame in Japan. This is clearly a case where this article deserves improvement, rather than the hammer of AfD. I would hope that in the future, the nominator spend a little more time doing research before bringing articles to AfD. TwilligToves (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In all fairness, I haven't found many reviews, most of the articles that mention him are also announcing that he will play, and don't describe how he played--we need more of that. And when the article was nominated, there was only one valid reference, the other was to his own web site. The nominator did wikipedia a service by bringing a neglected article to our attention, so we should continue bringing the article up to a better level. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being mentioned do to his violin playing skill and age in major news sources, makes the person notable. Dream Focus 15:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above - article has undergone considerable improvements which serve well in establishing the subject's notability. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Daud

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

Non notable. DimaG (talk) 05:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Might be notable in trade magazines in his own field, but no general notability. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear notable, no sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson Southern Marching Titans

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

Article is an unnecessary content fork about the school's marching band, which in and of itself is not notable beyond the school. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to HS page...NN, fails WP:GNG CTJF83 chat 05:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 gnews hit [13]. 07:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Reywas92^Talk 03:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, then recreate as redirect to Gibson Southern High School, since redirects are cheap. tedder (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this doesn't seem to even approach Notability. I don't see any way for the article to become compliant with our inclusion criteria. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've had a few interesting comments left on my talk page about this nomination, one of which noted this is the third attempt to delete the page, though there is no record of previous AfD's. Just in case it comes up: there was an attempt to merge and redirect the article to the school article some years ago, which was undone. The article was later prodded for deletion. The prod was removed, and the article never stood at AfD for discussion. As far as I can tell, this is the first time the community has stood in judgement of the article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lost money scam

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

Looking at the title, "Lost money scam", should raise red flags. Is this supposed to be a page about scams involving money?, because in that case there are the appropriate pages confidence trick and fraud. Almost every other page this user has created has been deleted, as witnessed on User talk:Apl2007. Imperatore (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too vague a title, and it is unclear what specific type of scam the article is supposed to be about. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced article about how generous companies will be to a person trying to rip them off. Some of this is probably true, but when making statements like "Most phone companies have a policy" or "They will generally get a refund or replacement" there needs to be more to it than having heard about someone else's personal experience. If kept, the how-to-steal guide needs to mention that trying any of these is a good way of calling attention to oneself, and that repeat customers are likely to face prosecution. Mandsford (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fantasy Books with Happy Endings

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

Contested PROD. List does not have acceptable reliable sources and does not meet WP:GNG and may contain Original Research WP:OR. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, "happy" is inherently POV, many other comments here are purely the subjective opinion of the article creator(s). I dont see any way this can stay here, as its pure OR.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lest we encourage List of Fantasy Books with Unhappy Endings and List of Fantasy Books with Ambiguous Endings. Way too broad a classification to be useful. Plus the current emphasis on secular vs Christian and "Adult content" suggest an underlying agenda. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, the unhappy ending is that this going to be deleted for the reasons listed above. The happy ending is that it stayed up four months longer than might have been expected, and lots of people looked at the list while it was up. It was an interesting idea, but it's appropriate for a forum on fantasy fiction, not for an online encyclopedia. Look around, some of your favorite series probably have a wiki of their own. Mandsford (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first few lines ('Please add to this list') say it all, if the article did survive this RFA (which it probably won't), I doubt sources would arrive on it for dozens of days. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R. Richard

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

Notability not supported by independent reliable sources. Evil saltine (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability hasn't been established and the article looks a bit like nonsense. Szzuk (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, looks like nonsense. Yworo (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Korean Flight of Doom

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

Unreferenced and totally speculative article about an event that has yet to happen. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a ton of events on WP that haven't occured yet like say the 2010 World Cup...Once it is disproven then it can be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.208.212 (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC) — 108.6.208.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It is satire. Rather than delete it, merge it into the iPad page as an example of pre-release jitters. The massive nature of the shipment means that UPS tracking doesn't work like normal and people are getting anxious. This information belongs as witness to a part of the cultural phenomenon of major product releases. This is a new one though, but one we're likely to see again in the future. It is right along with people waiting outside a store all night. Instead of waiting outside a store, people are waiting at their computers and sharing community via a chat room. This represents a distinct development in this type of thing and should be documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.88.63 (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC) — 68.111.88.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete no sources. if someone can find a source for a notable delay in shipping, add it to the ipad article. this is essentially vandalism, and should be treated as such.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:Vandalism. WWGB (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but agree with allowing a source to be found for i-pad merge. I need some Coffee... Buggie111 (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as speculative and unencyclopedic. Dr Aaij (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kinda in the news via twitter and furoms nothing substantial yet to verify much of anything. Delete for now Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW I guess this supposed to be funny. Author is too young to remember KAL 007, I guess. After the purchase arrives, tell us how you like your new iPad. Mandsford (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is April 7 and what others expected is now true. Blue Rasberry 14:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS Marokwitz (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no sources, and no encyclopedic value. Reyk _YO! 04:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Tutorial

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

Failure to meet notability requirements, article has no sources Slon02 (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN school, with no G search results CTJF83 chat 05:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable, no sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone is able to pull some reliable sources out of a hat. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN organization, and possible hoax. The institution has no notability even in Bengali language media from Bangladesh. --Ragib (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is not a hoax. See this passing mention in The Daily Star (Bangladesh) : Inter-school Spelling Bee: Galib Huq of Kids Tutorial secured 1st position. Because I can find no merge target, I am neutral. Cunard (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 19:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HomeGround Services

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

Organization does not appear to meet standards spelled out at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There are references to third party sources in the article, but those sources do not mention this organization at all. I can see nowhere where this organization is discussed in an indepth and substantial manner by independent reliable sources. Jayron32 03:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article just needs a few references in fact think that should have been the tag on it. I think simply a little time and care could easily save this Non-profit organizations for the homeless article. HomeGround Services is in partnership with the Victorian Government.Moxy (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whilst the current article mainly has government sources. it has appeared sufficiently in mainstream media [14]. LibStar (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This organisation has been the subject of extensive media coverage: http://www.homeground.org.au/page-2-38-Newsclippings.htm ; It is listed on multiple government websites including the Housing Registrar of Victoria - which comments on its notability for introducing a new housing model (Common Ground housing) http://www.housingregistrar.vic.gov.au/registered-housing-sector/housing-providers/HomeGround-Services ; There are also other links from community sector organisations listing it as a resource and organisation in their areas, for example - http://www.ppcg.org.au/one-step-off-the-street/homeground-services ; Elizabeth Street Common Ground has its own government-partnered website http://www.elizabethstcgsh.org and another of their Common Ground proposals is listed on the AFL website: http://www.afl.com.au/newsarticle/tabid/4311/newsid/85990/default.aspx ; They are included in the 08/09 Annual Report of the Australian Federal Department of Family and Community Services: http://www.homeground.org.au/upload/assets/Pages%20from%20Fahcsia%20annual%20report%20with%20HG%20reference%20ar08_09.pdf - Their CEO is quoted by the Federal Government. Examples of media coverage include http://www.abc.net.au/rn/australiatalks/stories/2010/2853874.htm , http://www.homeground.org.au/upload/assets/Groups%20join%20forces%20to%20target%20homelessness%20(Australian%20Senior,%20092510).pdf, http://brimbank-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/help-in-sunshine-social-housing/#When:18:00:22Z , http://news.theage.com.au/national/homeless-wc-asylum-seekers-may-get-digs-20081211-6wkq.html , etc SN4C (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As mentioned by others above, there is a lot more third party information out there - the article just needs more work. I wish to disclose that I am the originator of this article and it is my first article. Also, this organisation has strong international links to Common Ground New York which is also featured on wikipedia. It's great to see others involved and supporting the principle of the article. Bowl4u (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added in three external links to the Victorian Housing Registrar, the US peak homelessness body's website featuring a guest article from HomeGround and the Rotary Club of Melbourne's page on their partnership with HomeGround. I also need to disclose that I've done a lot of editing on this article and feel strongly it should remain, particularly as there seems to be an under-representation of homelessness organisations. Hopefully we can fix that in the future. I'm also new to Wikipedia editing so will take any advice or criticism on board. SN4C (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from what I've seen, lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. a quote from the ceo or letters written by them or a short mention of them is not significant coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BWO (party)

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

Individual nightclubs are rarely notable, and this one doesn't seem to be. No gnews hits, and a Google search on "BWO "night club" Bratislava -blog" gets less than 40 hits, none of them seeming to be relevant and non-trivial. Does not appear to meet WP:CORP, or the WP:GNG. Has been speedy deleted under A7 and recreated by the same editor. Some of the statements in the current version are at least arguably claims of significance, so i am bringing it here. DES ^(talk) 02:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per my nom unless independent reliabale sources that clearly establish notability are found and added to the article. DES ^(talk) 02:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete unless sources (even non-English sources) materialize. I can't find anything in English; though I don't speak Slovakian, so someone may have to dig to find any sources there. Since sources, and thus notability, are not yet self-evident, this should be deleted. --Jayron32 03:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's tough to delete an article that appears to be about a subject with borderline notability in this situation. I'm cautious of contributing to the US-centric bias of the website, but I find the nomination compelling in this case. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakia (dark green) in Europe (dark grey/light green)

- Note, Google news search returns hits in any language, and i have several times noted the existence of hits I could not read. here there were none. Of course, news sources in Slovakia may not be as well indexed or as likely to be online at all as those in Europe or North America. But it is very rare for a night club in Europe or NA to be notable either, so I am not as worried about systemic bias as I would be for another sort of subject. DES ^(talk) 22:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Slovakia is in Europe, right in the middle of it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Excuse me, i should have said western Europe. DES ^(talk) 18:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia deletes all sorts of articles with borderline and real notability. Face it, this is not a notable night club - never has, never will. It fails WP:Pokémon test we don't need a collection of articles about barely notable night clubs. kgrr ^talk 01:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Clement

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

I happen to approve of her work, but does she really meet WP:BIO? Orange Mike | Talk 01:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of G News coverage. CTJF83 chat 05:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I have concern over whether the article ever has the potential to become more than just a stub. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Washington Post obituary[15] provides demonstration of notability and also some good material for expanding the article. Is clear that she is notable for more than one thing: the civil rights work and the healthcare campaign. That should preclude a merge. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found plenty of references, that could also be used to expand the article. Already the claim that she is an office holder in an organisation with an article means that I removed the speedy delete tag earlier. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Hirsch

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

Blatant self-promotion. The original author simply wrote an article about herself and her work. Except for one reference that mentions her in passing (and her own website), the other references given are generic and include no mention of her. Claims of various honors and exhibits are not referenced and cannot be independently verified. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:COI, blatant self-promotion, not notable as written (no sources). (GregJackP (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Same concerns as previous users. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd like to point out that the user that created the article placed identical information on her user page. She's basically using Wikipedia for free publicity. I don't know if her user page information can be removed under some policy or if it's just an annoyance I'll have to tolerate. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and doesn't reproducing her website here constitute a copyright violation? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete what's the hangup? kgrr ^talk 01:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think there is much dispute, I would ask that when this article is deleted that the administrator also give consideration to removing the content from Karen's user page, as it's being used for blatant self-promotion, also (which after a review of the policy, also appears to be a violation). Chicken Wing (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "hangup" is that the article was tagged for speedy deletion, but SD was declined by an admin (a decision with which I disagree), so protocol dictates that the article then go to a formal AfD, as we have here. The upside is that if the article is deleted through AfD, it cannot then be recreated by the original author (or anyone else) without deletion review, which is very difficult. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Turner (civil servant)

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

Non notable British civil servant, no assertion of notability given, can find no substantial coverage of him in reliable sources. Prod removed by User:Eclecticology with the edit summary "No reason to believe he is not notable.", which is not a good reason to keep the article, I believe –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —–– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —–– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list of Turner's positions as a former senior civil servant makes his notability more than obvious. None of the material there is contentious, but I will leave it to someone in England with better access to biographical material to establish the source for the information. Eclecticology (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The notability criteria at WP:ANYBIO are quite clear and I fail to see how a list of positions in the civil service establish notability in Wikipedia terms. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Jezhotwells rightly points out, notability arises from the extent of coverage in reliable sources, not from a person's civil service position. In any case, we have no way of knowing how senior this guy actually was, "Operations Research" could be a massive division or a small unit. I'm not seeing the significant coverage in reliable sources here, so unless that changes over the course of this listing, the article ought to be deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Mkativerata says, the inclusion criterion for an article in the encyclopedia is significant coverage in reliable sources, and I can find none. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Detete. The article just appears to be a résumé for a white-collar professional with a decent career. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Augusta Moore

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

Non-notable, fails WP:V. No reliable sources found for over a year. User:Mccainre removed prod tag claiming she's notable[16], but only contributed a link to the organization Augusta currently works for [17] --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability found. (GregJackP (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 08:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue and added some sources as well. Silver seren^C 08:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- with ODC/Dance. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 09:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The rationales for retention clearly outweigh the rationales for deletion here. –MuZemike 19:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McCusker

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

This article has been deleted twice as copyright violation and is mainly the work of WP:SPAs. It makes some assertion of notability but the sources are all linked with the subject. I suspect this is either autobiography or the work of a PR, in any case it lacks independent sources (and always has) and is written in the tone of an agent's biography. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage of the subject found nor any reviews of his work in reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article did indeed lack reliable sources, but upon further research, there were many available. I've added four of them, and more can be added if needed, but this seems sufficient. I've also rewritten the wording and formatting, and removed the article tags. American Eagle (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 06:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 06:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have also added some more sources into the article. He appears to be a notable author and radio personality. Silver seren^C 06:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The four sources added are not really convincing. A student newspaper, a newsbank result with no content, a brief mention, and an article naming him as winner of a competition for tickets to a Spinal Tap contest. Surely these are not being claimed as multiple significant coverage in reliable sources?--Michig (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four? I added seven EL's. Silver seren^C 08:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four sources, several more external links, one of which duplicates a reference. None of those are really significant coverage in reliable sources as far as I can tell. --Michig (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMDb lists McCusker's credits as "miscellaneous crew", which is hardly compelling. I have an admitted bias against articles that appear to have been created or significantly influenced by conflict of interest users or single purpose accounts, but I still don't see enough here to merit keeping the article. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Notability is established by reliable sources, not by what IMDb lists him as. (b) I have rewritten the article and removed all promotional language. Look at the sources and go by policy; not IMDb or your biases. American Eagle (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This only inclines me even further not to keep the article. First, I don't think most people being reasonable would think I based my decision solely on IMDb's listing. I merely stated one of many factors. I, along with most people, don't typically write out every single reason why an article should be deleted. Secondly, everyone has biases. I stated mine. I tried to reach a conclusion in spite of my bias, and you have acted as if I deliberately reached a conclusion in furtherance of bias, which is not correct interpretation of what I wrote. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you have still not listed any credible reasons for why this article should be deleted. Silver seren^C 00:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has four references, none of which singularly or collectively represent significant independent coverage. The introduction says he has written numerous books, plays, and musicals, but it appears that none of those are notable. Of the two notable productions he's tied to, the source for one of them (Radioworld) is an article in which he is mentioned one time, with about half of one sentence being dedicated to his achievements. He appears to be a minor player in creating some Christian-themed media. That's about it. Chicken Wing (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vote we keep it. There are several sources for Paul and he's a very well-known writer.Keen Peach (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kickban

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

notability has not been demonstrated in any way. wikipedia is not a help manual for irc commands Theserialcomma (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ... somewhere. Not standalone-article material at this point, but still useful and encyclopedic material. Technical information like this is usually easily sourced. Amalthea 08:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i hate to be the one to wp:burden you, but where are these easily found sources? a vote with a fallacious argument isn't a very useful vote. merge somewhere? there are easily found sources but no one can find them? Theserialcomma (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here, too: Verifiability is not the problem (I'll leave it at a pointer at google books), almost all material in the article is verifiable and uncontentious. WP:N is the problem, which is why I suggested a merge.
A proper merge target here is probably ban (law). I note that Kick (chat room jargon) is a soft redirect to wiktionary these days, that is the very least that we should have here, too, it's a likely and valid search term. Amalthea 11:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is not sourced. Article fails to explain how a "kickban" differs from other forms of "ban." The possible grounds for a ban are not relevant. Also, this AfD may be improperly formed as the link in the article's template to the deletion discussion is red. Racepacket (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And how does deletion make the distinction between "ban" and "kickban" clearer? Wouldn't a merge to ban (law) help with that? Amalthea 11:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a trivial article and best left as a mention in an IRC article. Szzuk (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that this subject probably merits a one or two sentence mention in another article. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hoffer

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

Lacks notability and may have autobiography or COI issues. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there is another person with the same name that is a Swedish Decathelon athlete. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 05:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ATHLETE, which applies here, despite chess being a sedenatry sport. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable as a player (doesn't appear in FIDE's database) and I can find no sources indicating much significance as a coach or journalist.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FIDE doesn't have correspondence chess players does it? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REply He has a USCF CC rating (in the external links) and he played 9 games with the ICCF (in the external links). He has no ICCF rating. (The ICCF requires 12 games for a published rating.) Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 00:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They really don't help at all. Over the board is, for some, not the same as correspondence. Otherwise the ICCF doesn't appear to show past ratings. Hoffer NIC publication was from 1990, so it looks like that he is now twenty years ago past his peak. I'd like to see what is in the NIC publication but I don't have that available. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- Seems to meet WP:GNG. Am somewhat impressed with the undefeated record at Correspondence Chess. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who has he played? What is the quality of the tournaments he has entered?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? If he meets WP:N it doesn't matter. That said, I don't think he does meet WP:N. The sources in the article aren't great and I can't find anything else... Hobit (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to get at was if the tournaments that he has entered or won are notable, then that might indicate whether he is notable too...--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Games on chessgames.com say First National Team Championship corres. His opponents seem to be in the FM Elo range Wayne Conover whom he played twice had an over-the-board Elo rating of 2305 in 2000 at the age of sixty. One can only imagine that he would of been stronger ten years before. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'd misunderstood. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note One of the editors of the article is user:yes2chess, and www.yes2chess.com is the name of Hoffer's website, raising WP:AUTOBIO concerns. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 00:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While COI is a concern, that is not grounds deletion. However, lack of notability is and the subject has been the object of requisite WP:V, WP:IS to demonstrate notability. Eusebeus (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to conflict of interest concerns, the subject does not appear to be a very notable chess player. The subject may very well be a good player, but good and notable are different things. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is some lengthy discussion about this article on its talk page. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 22:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Winning a tournament that doesn't in itself seem notable doesn't meet the requirements of WP:ATHLETE, and there's not enough there as a chess writer to demonstrate that the subject meets WP:BIO. Quale (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. SyG (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Tim Song (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fizzle Like A Flood

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

Delete. This is technically a poorly referenced WP:BLP article, and I'm not entirely convinced it meets WP:MUSIC still either. Contested prod. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - poorly sourced? But that's not a reason for AfD. It seems notable as a music article: albums produced by a real record label, album artwork from the same artist for the Beach Boys, a song used in movie - a serious band. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you're basing your evaluation on, this is poorly sourced BLP. WP:MUSIC does not appear to be met either. Yes, we most certainly do delete articles like this. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 01:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keeping this article would interpret notability requirements too broadly and would seem to allow far too many garage bands and local artists to be included. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no opinion about the notability of this subject, but would like to point out that this sort of "opening the floodgates" argument doesn't hold water (I can't quite work out whether or not that is a mixed metaphor). This discussion is about this article, not about any others that may be created. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are multiple articles about the subject, representing significant coverage, in the Omaha World-Herald; I've added two examples just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Event-Driven Messaging

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

Procedural nomination. Originally proposed for deletion by Stifle (talk · contribs) ("Written in nonsense business jargon, no salvageable useful content"); deletion endorsed by Nyttend (talk · contribs) ("As well, there's no real evidence of notability"), but constested by creator. Possibly a duplicate topic with Event-driven programming. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although this design pattern shares some basics with Event-Driven programming, however, the Event-Driven Messaging design pattern specifically deals with services, unlike objects, and discusses various issues within the service-oriented world. The constant contributor (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do accept that this specific design pattern is significantly different to the general event-driven programming. The description of the pattern at [18] to me sounds almost identical to the Observer pattern, just with the word service added. (A minor gripe is that why they didn't just call it the observer pattern for services, after all the rational for patterns was to create a common language). A possible solution might be to redirect to Observer pattern and add a note to that article then when applied to services it is called EDM. But there do seem to be issues with service availability which are not present in the observer pattern. So there does seem to be enough unique content to justify an article. There do seem to be enough references in the litrature, there is an main SOA book, and website, an InformIT article, a mention in an article in SOA Magazine.--Salix (talk): 18:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Defer Although I work in IT, this isn't my field and and I'd guess few could comment on it sensibly. I suggest that an admin asks some more expert people to review it and come to a consensus whwther it should be kept or not. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have started revisiting all of my articles in order to add more credible/neutral secondary sources. In the mean while, I would request all admins to give me some time while I do the research and add the references. Thanks The constant contributor (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The fact that there was a disputed PROD is no reason to bring the article here. The concept is quite clear to those that understand this jargon and said jargon occurs in numerous reliable sources as the search links above testify. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have just added some secondary sources.The constant contributor (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MyLOL

AfDs for this article:

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

Social networking site for teenagers. In the AfD discussion in 2008 the site was found to be notable because it was covered in multiple reliable sources; all those sources were newspaper articles about security concerns, since the site had been used by adults who sought contact with teenagers. Today, there is only one English-language RS to be found; I have made a good-faith search for other sources but found nothing else. That means that the only good source for the article is an article from 2008 about the website's security practices, which to me seems as if the site is notable for one event only, rather than generally notable. Note also that a user with a user name indicating that they are involved with the site (mylol.net is owned by the company Jiggie, Inc. as seen here) has been making promotional edits to the article, adding unsourced and unencyclopedic information. When that is removed, pretty much all that remains is the two-year-old news report on possible security problems, and I don't think that's enough for WP:WEB. bonadea contributions talk 11:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and Expand - This website is barely notible based on looking at the article, though a Google search for the site name does return quite a few results, the information on this page needs to be condenced and expanded -Joker264 (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any additional sources and the available WP:RS coverage doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. — Rankiri (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing on G News CTJF83 chat 05:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small time. Going nowhere but bust. Szzuk (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Hilley

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

Unsourced BLP, can't find any significant coverage for this voice actor bar listings etc. PROD removed. Black Kite 21:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand and source, as searches reveal what the nominator missed. Apparently this actor/voice artist is known for works outside of Squidbillies and Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite your claim, I did that search myself, and I still don't see any significant coverage there. Yes, he's had a few voice parts, but I'd expect to see more than there is if he is actually notable. (Those few news reports are all from local press, as well).Black Kite 22:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources linked by MichaelQSchmidt do not, in my view, amount to significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. There just isn't enough here to support a properly verified reliable article. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No offense intended to the article's subject, but keeping this article would appear to interpret the notability guidelines for actors far too broadly. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost (IRC)

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

there seems to be no possible way that this will ever be a notable topic, with third party reliable sources, worthy of its own article on wikipedia. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Existence of the concept is undisputed (1 2 3 4) so verifiability is not the issue, but notability is. In this case, and with the disclaimer that I know nothing about IRC, even a mention in our encyclopedic article on IRC seems undue. Amalthea 11:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per tag on page. Might be able to sustain itself with in the requested merge article, if not, we can delete it. Buggie111 (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect to appropriate target. Concept is real, but not enough material to sustain a seperate article. The information is better served in a larger, omnibus article on IRC. --Jayron32 04:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A trivial thing. It occurs but so what. Lots of trivial things occur in this world. Szzuk (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for a separate article on each aspect of IRC. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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