Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 20

< 19 August	21 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ellenbogen

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

Declined prod. Apparently non-notable, article asserts that he's been quoted, but not that he's been covered by reliable sources. No refs. I can find quotes by him but not much about him. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Nothing notable on Google and Yahoo search, when I searched Google News it only shows that he's served as an NFL doctor. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
- He appears to have been on a few episodes of Dr 90210, but not enough that he should have his own article.
- The Awards section shows that he's received a few minor awards, but once again nothing notable.
- He has quite a list of publications in medical journals, but that just shows that he's a good academic surgeon, not necessarily a notable one. --Slashme (talk)
Delete Not notable, despite the overblown puffery of the article. The "awards" listed are nothing at all (for example, the "Physician Recognition Award" from the AMA and CMA merely means that he reported attending the required amount of continuing education [1]). I looked into that long, unlinked list of "Media" but found that when they say he was "featured" they merely mean he was quoted, for example in Los Angeles Magazine. There does not appear to be any significant coverage ABOUT him as required for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references to support the claims in the article and a search to do so failed.Curb Chain (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ultima (series). Courcelles 23:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Britannia (Ultima)

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

Fails the general notability guideline due to an absence of third party references, because the article is attributed entirely to instruction manuals. Also fails what Wikipedia is not, because it's all in-universe information with no information on reception (WP:NOT#PLOT), and is a pretense to list every level in the game (WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:NOTTRAVEL). The right kind of sources don't exist, so it's impossible to turn this from a level-by-level directory to something that explains this setting's reception and significance. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) — frankie (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, being covered in detail in sources such as Atlas of cyberspace and The fantasy role-playing game: a new performing art. This virtual world is both notable and significant, for example, "Britannia was the first game world to host a complex economy, the first to generate currency and goods traded in the real world, and the first to witness a mass protest by players demanding rights for their avatars." (Videogames and education). Warden (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That has more to do with Ultima Online than the main series. Those facts are already covered more appropriately in Ultima Online and Criticism of Ultima Online. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, its mostly the main series. The 8 major towns and some other locations are used in most of the games. The article mentions places that aren't in Ultima Online. Dream Focus 01:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's exactly the problem. The article mentions places that aren't covered in sources. Moreover, the article's main focus is on WP:GAMEGUIDE content (list of game levels, locations within those levels) that the sources don't describe as notable -- particularly the ones revealed by Warden and the sources I've reviewed. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article's subject must prove it is notable, not the contents within it. It would be an incomplete list if it didn't feature everything. Eight towns, eight dungeons, various villages, eight shrines of virtue, and other significant locations. Dream Focus 13:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very notable fictional location. With 569 results from Google news for "Britannia" AND "Ultima", its a lot to sort through. Not sure if a review by Gamers Hell counts as a reliable source or not. [2] The sources Warden mentioned are sufficient though. Dream Focus 20:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ultima (series) - There's some encyclopedic info here, but the topic isn't notable beyond the game itself. --Slashme (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Slashme. Colonel, as much as I'd like to agree with you, the content more properly belongs to the main article. Moreover, too much of the content is too crufty and not verified (and therefore made notable, DreamFocus) by independent references. That's a matter of editing--but since I don't believe in the notability of the topic, in this case it ought to be a matter of pruning after a merge. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic has to be proven notable, not the contents. The contents are there to make the article complete. And primary sources are perfectly fine when the information is not in doubt. Dream Focus 01:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. Wikipedia isn't a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Even if the main topic is notable, there isn't much to actually say about it aside from getting into stuff outside the scope of Wikipedia with a level-by-level, a dungeon-by-dungeon breakdown. You still want the level-by-level dungeon-by-dungeon breakdown. We get it. Let the AFD run its course. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAMEGUIDE says "A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry". The degree to which we summarise therefore relates to the significance of the game. My experience of nominating an article about a particular chess opening was that such articles will be invariably be Kept. We have hundreds of such articles and so we see that, if the game is well-respected and written about, then we will have more than a single article about the details of the game. This is the case for Britannia/Ultima which is identified by numerous sources as being a significant pioneer in its field. Its game world or setting is used across a large number of individual games in a variety of formats. It is therefore appropriate to have an article which covers this common setting to save repetition across the multiple articles about the multiple Ultima games and spinoffs. See chessboard for the equivalent article for the game chess. Warden (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summarize and merge: per slashme. Some encyclopedic information. But degenerates into a verbal map of where to find shrines and dungeons. See WP:GAMEGUIDE. Dzlife (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Ihsan Chaudhry

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

Contest PROD. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. No results on GS or even google. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 22:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Basil. Courcelles 23:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ocimum basilicum

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

Merged with Basil Michael Goodyear (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to basil. no need to merge, as all information is already present in that article. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to basil. Agree with Alf that all info appears to already exist in the basil article, so no need to actually merge. Dana boomer (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT to school district article. postdlf (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muir Middle School (Milford, Michigan)

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

Middle school (non-secondary school) lacking in reliable sources to establish notability. See also Common outcomes/consensus on schools; generally a Blue Ribbon school can pass the test, while a generic primary school will not, even if it happens to be named after someone famous. tedder (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the school district, as the school itself seems to fail notability, etc, etc. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Huron Valley School District, the school's district. Nothing to merge. The school gets passing mentions in the local press, but coverage is mostly focused on the district. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Huron Valley School District per standard procedure for nn primary and middle schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mortgage GSE controversy

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

While article does contain factual information, the premise of the article is completely subjective. That is, there is no listed source or asserted reference or basis for even labeling the set of events described in the article as a 'Mortgage GSE controversy' Cander0000 (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unreferenced personal essay from 2005 that gave some hints of impending problems in the U.S. mortgage industry. However, the title is not a plausible search term, and there is little or nothing here that is relevant to the history of the mortgage meltdown of recent years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Shahid

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

"known for getting 23 A grades in his Cambridge O Level exam, breaking the world record". This falls under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that this fails WP:NOTNEWS. Truthsort (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A classic case of WP:BLP1E. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. If the subject of World records in Cambridge O Level exam isn't notable enough for an article, the record holder surely isn't. Not sure if WP:BLP1E applies here. Don't we have articles on people notable for nothing but world records in track & field, swimming, etc? causa sui (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete statistical firsts are not notableCurb Chain (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT to school district article. postdlf (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Muir Middle School (Wausau, Wisconsin)

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

Middle school (non-secondary school) lacking in reliable sources to establish notability. See also Common outcomes/consensus on schools; generally a Blue Ribbon school can pass the test, while a generic primary school will not, even if it happens to be named after someone famous. tedder (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I don't know anyone famous named "Middle School". Seriously, aside from the usual, there is no evidence of significant reliable source. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - already listed in the school district article. No need to have a separate article for a non-notable middle school. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Common outcomes/consensus on schools - standard procedure for nn schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashis Roy

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

Old marathon runner. Notability per WP:ATHLETE questionable. Most of the sources are only result lists. bender235 (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This guy has a number of borderline-notable aspects; when taken together they could probably make for a reasonable article. --Slashme (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage about his numerous marathons exists in multiple reliable sources and spread over a large period of time establishing notability. Examples include [3], [4], [5], [6]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as unambiguous promotion. — Joseph Fox 22:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Touch Screen Effect

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

This article appears to be an essay, original research, and possibly a promotion for the company named in the caption for the nonexistent image. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I already pushed this to RfD after User:The Mark of the Beast turned it into a redirect to Touchscreen. The fact that this obvious WP:NOTESSAY/WP:NOTBLOG violation has bounced between RfD, PROD and AfD without anyone having the ability or intention to break the harsh truth to the creator of this article that it is far, far outside the project scope of Wikipedia shows a failure in the WP:CSD criteria and the need for a new "Unambiguous WP:NOT violation" criteria. Now, douse this bloody thing with gasoline and put a match to it, then salt the remains and tattoo the 'This page in a nutshell' section of WP:NOT onto the forehead of the article creator. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shorty and The Boyz Radio

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

Non-notable internet radio station which does not meet WP:WEB, was deproded by User:Shortyandtheboyz MadCow257 (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence that this is a notable web-radio show. --Slashme (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AfD notice has been removed twice (1, 2) so it is not on the page right now MadCow257 (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation of Islamic Brotherhood

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

The article is not much proper in order to meet its guidelines Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete promotional spam for NN organization. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'd have preferred to have this speedily deleted!
- Spam
- No assertion of notability whatever
- Uninformative article which gives no context about the organisation to the reader. --Slashme (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. Housekeeping closure since the article was deleted per WP:SPEEDY criteria A7 and G11. VQuakr (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YFame

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

Not a proper name Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no sources and no suggestion of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsZippy (talk • contribs) 20:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Zippy - there is no sign of any notability and no sources to back ridiculous claims. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand with Zippy but if you get some appropriate sources, your page will be kept and will not be deleted. But it is recommended to delete it because, it explains a fan site. -- Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project'Or RIA

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

I cannot find any indication that this software product is notable. The article creator has stated that he does not think it has received much media coverage on the talk page. The article has previously been deleted via speedy and PROD rationales at ProjectOr. VQuakr (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any significant coverage in 3rd party sources. --Slashme (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Long Emergency Plan

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

Several third party links but how many even mention this plan, still less attest to its notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I've made an independent evaluation on the Talk Page. Absence of reliable third-party evidence of notability—coupled with indications that the article was promotional—led me to conclude that the article does not currently meet WP eligibility criteria. Therefore, I have to support deletion (despite the apparent good intentions of the author of the article, who may not be fully familiar with WP policies).--MistyMorn (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sufficient reliable sources to suggest notability. ItsZippy (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete - I know that since I am kinda new to Wikipedia my opinion is probably not going to make much of a difference here. I understand that lots of articles are written on Wikipedia about small books and minor internet memes and little stuff that doesn't get much TV time or press releases, similar to this article's subject. I respect the opinions written above, however I am not sure if it is possible to conclude that a promotion is happening out there, because I don't see why anyone would be promoting it, as there is no-one asking for money or advertising anything on the subject's website. Anyway, I do personally know the person who published the final copy of this Wikipedia article, because I tried to write about this subject too, but I obviously didn't write about it in the approved way because other Wikipedia editors requested that I improve the article, so I asked the current author to re-write it better for me, and he did improve it and added more links to my list that showed where it is being shared on the internet. I know he's not a promoter, but he does believe there is value in the article's subject, and he believes that people out there are sharing it 'cuz they are a little freaked out by all the nasty drops in the stock market and the media keeps talking all the time about recessions or another Great Depression coming soon. So I agree, the article's subject is not a big media topic, it's just like a lot of lesser-known subjects that Wikipedia has articles about. Lillybellie2011 (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! The fact that you're new doesn't mean that your opinion isn't valued, but please read the essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: it will give you a good idea about what we consider when deleting a page (for example, we don't judge an article by what is already on the encyclopedia, because then we'd quickly get into a situation where we allow anything). In this case, it fails the General Notability Guideline - it has not been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so I would recommend that it be deleted. --Slashme (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

____________

*Non-vote -As this Article's publisher, I will of course not vote on the matter. I would like to clarify that my ultimate goal is to produce worthy articles for the encyclopedia, and if this article does not meet the admission requirements I am not offended if it is deleted. If any editors are looking for evidence of notability, the best I have found is through Google's search engine. The words "long", "emergency" and "plan" have many millions of search results, but I have found 3rd-party references to the article's subject by searching for it in different search methods. Several of the examples would not allow links directly to the example though, so I agree that the links in this article are perhaps less then ideal. EnochHenderson (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Loo

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

Non-notable dentist autobiography sourced to her own website. Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. As a dentist she has won at least one award (but that is unlikely to be enough for Wikipedia's notability standards). As the founder of a charity what she has done has been mostly done over the last couple of years. There are a some mentions in community press. She's probably a borderline case but for the worthwhile charity it would be nice to keep the article. Her charity was voted in to a $100,000 donation from Pepsi. That's impressive too and is likely to have received some local community press. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - I'd refer you to WP:NOBLECAUSE on this argument. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails under scholar. No news mentions for charitable work. The charity Spring for Kids should be considered for deletion as well.Novangelis (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've actually cleaned this up a good deal, so it's much less spammy than the original, but I don't really think she meests the notability criteria, same with the charity. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure she is a good dentist and a fine citizen, but Wikipedia requires proof/verification, and there is none. I could find no mention of her or her charity at Google News Archive or at Google Scholar. I couldn't even find confirmation that she was president of the British Columbia Society of Orthodontists (not that I'm doubting it, but it doesn't seem to have generated any notability). --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No third-party sources that would allow for a pass of WP:GNG have been provided, and a news search did not turn up any. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I want to keep this for the charity, the arguments against it are far stronger. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete promotional pieceCurb Chain (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Witten

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

Non-notable: hasn't yet played a professional game. HVB648 (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to pass WP:GNG per [7].--Giants27(T|C) 19:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. NSPORTS does not automatically assume notability of players who played in the UFL. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. ~~He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.~~ WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Has been the subject of significant, non-trivial coverage in mainstream media. Not just passing references in game coverage, but coverage focused on him. See, e.g., [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Cbl62 (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem to be non-routine coverage, and I strike it from my previous comment. However, I still consider him WP:Run-of-the-mill, and GNG says "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." WP:IAR policy says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I believe its best to not have a stand-alone article for an average college player who went undrafted. No prejudice to recreate if he ever plays in a notable professional league. —Bagumba (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No good reason to ignore the rules here. Cbl62 (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian hip hop

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

This article is blatant WP:OR and a magnet for vanity editing. Iranian hip-hop is hip-hop in Iran. It exists and there are some acts. And that's about all that can be said from the sources presented. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{sofixit}} 86.44.18.93 (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Susceptibility to vanity editing does not advance an argument for deletion, and there are plenty of legitimate sources currently in the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Part of an established set of articles on hip hop by country; sources are inadequate, but present enough to attest the existence and notability of the subject (thus it's a problem to be solved by editing, not deletion). Is this a test case for the entire Category:Hip hop by nationality tree, or is there a reason why the nominator is singling out Iran? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social preference optimization

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

(This article was proposed for deletion, but that was contested by the page creator.) The article describes a neologism that has not seen use outside of a single source, which appears to be related to whoever coined the term. In addition, there is a significant POV issue, and the article would require significant rewrite to be encyclopedic. wctaiwan (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Ad style article for Dennis Stemmle. Topic is covered in Social search and Social media optimization MadCow257 (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete not only is it an imaginary and NN subject and an advert for dennis stemmle, but it's full of paraphrase and copyvio from the dude's website. the duplicate detector tells us. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment oh my. have a look at this: http://www.articles<remove>base.com/find-articles.php?q=cherryl+lewis (i can't post the url articles base dot com because of spam filter) and this: [14], and, of course, then the history. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Winterswyk

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 03:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG per [15].--Giants27(T|C) 19:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If he was signed this year then he should be playing very soon. I think its a huge waste of time to delete the article based on him not yet playing a game and then turn around and recreate it a month later. --Kumioko (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to speculate whether Winterswyk will ever play in an NFL game this year or ever. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. Also did not qualify under NSPORTS with his college achievements, that might also have assume notability of this player. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. ~~He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.~~ WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL. —Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Has been the subject of significant, non-trivial coverage in mainstream media. Not just passing references in game coverage, but articles with coverage focused on him. See, e.g., [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Cbl62 (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem to be non-routine coverage, and I strike it from my previous comment. However, I still consider him WP:Run-of-the-mill, and GNG says "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." WP:IAR policy says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I dont think an at best above-average college player who went undrafted deserves a stand-alone article. No prejudice to recreate if he ever plays in a notable professional league.—Bagumba (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When did WP:Run-of-the-mill become a deletion policy? And also, I don't think anywhere here agrees with you that WP:GNG should be ignored because this guy isn't some superstar. If there are enough sources to write an article, then he deserves an article.--Giants27(T|C) 02:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Run-of-the-mill is mentioned in WP:ROUTINE, and WP:ROUTINE is mentioned in WP:GNG. While we can disagree on whether he is run-of-the-mill, GNG does not say to blindly count sources to determine notability, but rather that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." —Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Because on Wikipedia notability is not temporary, it would make sense not to close this discussion too soon. BusterD (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of the Keep comments explain why this non-drafted athlete is notable. --Slashme (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems to me that this notability discussion rests on one rock: playing in the NFL. Subject hasn't met that standard yet (sorry, User:Cbl62, with due respect, for my categorizing your GNG sources as routine sports coverage). Not all college athletes are notable, and this one's not going in any hall-of-fame based on his experience so far. This AJC blog suggests he'd be fighting as the seventh of eight tight ends on the eighty-man August 30 cut. This article today makes clear that Simmons is cut, putting subject fifth of six TEs active (with Peelle recovering from injury). How many TEs does the 53 man roster hold? Four? Maybe five? Just in case you're wondering, Coach Smith says three. So this subject is right on the knife edge of meeting WP:NSPORTS, but not anywhere close yet. IMHO, we userfy this space, or relist once more (on the 27th) in order to meet the September 3 final roster date. BusterD (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This professional blog from AJC from Monday shows subject is sixth of seven tight ends on the depth chart (now sixth of six). Tony Gonzales won't be cut, and they didn't bring Reggie Kelly in to cut him either (though he may not work out in their system). So I see four athletes fighting for one spot, and this subject didn't play the position in college (though he caught three last weekend). See no way to assess this discussion as keep without that September 3 roster. BusterD (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His notability is not dependent on his playing in the NFL. As noted above, he received substantial, non-trivial news coverage for his college football career. College football players who have had such coverage qualify under WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: We continue to disagree on this issue. Is your position that every college athlete who meets GNG using newspaper sports sections for sourcing is notable enough for inclusion? IMHO that's an unnecessarily broad interpretation of GNG. What about WP:NOTNEWS? BusterD (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An athlete can meet notability standards through either WP:GNG or WP:ATH. Either suffices, though GNG is the overarching and ultimately controlling principle. That said, I do not take the position that every college football player is notable. Only those who have received significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. It's actually a pretty small percentage of college football players who meet that standard. Second-stringers almost never do. Even most starters at non-skill positions don't get enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Likewise, players who play for teams that aren't in the top tier of programs also typically don't get enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. But the top players, and particularly those at the skill positions, at the top tier teams (like Boise State, Alabama, USC, Florida, etc.) do get a lot of coverage in the mainstream media. That subsection of college football players is probably < 1% (educated guess) of the total pool of college football players. Each player should be evaluated case by case. If there's sufficient coverage in the mainstream media, excluding routine coverage (e.g., passing references in game coverage, stat lines, etc.), then WP:GNG is satisifed. If not, I have voted to "delete" articles on college football players. As we've discussed before, the WP:GNG standard is (and should be the same) for athletes as it is for businessmen, entertainers, government officials, or anyone else. There are some who believe athletics is trivial and who would therefore require more extensive coverage of athletes than they would of businessmen. As a long-time researcher and student of sports history, I believe that athletes and athletics have done as much or more good for human civilization and culture than politicians and businessmen. We all have our subjective views, but those should not control our decisions as to what is or isn't notable. An in-depth profile of an athlete in the sports section of a major daily newspaper is entitled to the same weight in assessing notability as a profile of a hedge fund manager in the business section of the same newspaper. (On the assertion that the coverage of Winterswyk is "routine," even Bagumba (no fan of articles on college football players) acknowledges that the coverage is non-routine. Cbl62 (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have now substantially expanded the article with multiple reliable sourcing and discussion about an impressive college career at Boise State. Despite starting as a walk on, he was a four-year starter for Boise State teams that went 38-2 from 2008 to 2010. He was a first-team All-WAC player three straight years and was picked as the Most Valuable Defensive Player on Boise State's undefeated 2008 and 2009 teams. Was written up in Sports Illustrated, Los Angeles Times, ESPN, and elsewhere. Cbl62 (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In my opinion, Winterswyk does not meet WP:GNG after looking closely at the references added by Cbl62. The only "significant" coverage he received was from Idaho-based newspaper articles; it is standard for draft-eligible college football players to receive coverage in local papers. Being "written about" in SI, the LA Times, and ESPN would sway me, except they just merely mentioned Winterswyk and focused primarily on the team as a whole. Though I commend Cbl62 for his hard work on the article to make it appear that he undoubtedly passes GNG, I have to disagree. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brief reply. First, Deseret News is from Salt Lake City. It ran a feature story on him. Second, there's nothing in WP:GNG that requires national coverage. National coverage buys automatic inclusion for college athletes under WP:ATH but is not required for GNG. Should we similarly delete the articles on Boise Mayor David H. Bieter and every other Idaho politician because the news coverage of them is principally in Idaho newspapers? Cbl62 (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The story was written by The Idaho Statesman apparently and ran in the Deseret News. If national coverage is not required to pass GNG, why make it a point to note that Winterswyk was written about in national newspapers and websites? In response to your query about Bieter, he doesn't have an article solely because he passes GNG, he met other guidelines as well. Winterswyk's only chance at passing this AfD is by passing GNG.

So, it was an important enough story that it was published in major metropolitan dailies in both Idaho and Salt Lakes City. That only enhances the importance. As for national coverage, I mention it because it would go to show possible passage of WP:ATH in addition to WP:GNG. Also, your attempt to downplay the coverage in Sports Illustrated ignores the fact that Winterswyk's picture was on the cover of the magazine when Boise State was announced as the pre-season No. 1 in August 2010. The pre-season cover spot is one of the most prestigious placements in college football (unfortunately, a jinx as well). The coverage in the Orange County Register, Los Angeles Times, Sports Illustrated, and Deseret News actually convinces me that Winterswyk passes the portion of WP:ATH for college athletes who: "Gained national media attention as an individual." Cbl62 (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're really scraping the barrel then. I'm done arguing, my point has been made, and it is unlikely that my stance will have an impact on the outcome of the AfD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine to disagree, but "scraping the barrel," really? I've found over 300 articles that discuss Winterswyk, including over 20 where he is the main subject. That's hardly "scraping the barrel." Cbl62 (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maddy Lewis

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

Unsourced vanity article about notable person, full of nonsense and trivia. Orange Mike | Talk 18:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've tried to keep up with the advertorial content of this article for a while but can't. The links and information provided are rampantly unreliable. Not sure why this article wasn't deleted in the first place. The author declined the PROD I placed so I must have seen a claim of notability. If there were any coverage of the subject that would satisfy WP:GNG, it would surely be in the article. My Google News search and Google News Archive search provide no additional references that constitute significant coverage. Also fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. OlYeller^Talktome 18:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - I didn't find notable links on Google and Yahoo search engines.SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the usually otherwise addressable issue of an article written as if a resume, the woman has only a meager handful of film credits, most as decriptiptive rather than named characters.[25] And while she does have some slight coverage for her stagework, its not in-depth enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sher kay

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

This article is not a proper source explaining, something that is not real. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - I think this would've been good as speedy, as the article doesn't fully explain it's importance but I went ahead and searched Google and Yahoo...zero links. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. place has been verified. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RAJPUR/SUPPI BLOCK/SITAMARHI

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

Not a very proper source Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Although places tend to be kept, they require at least one source verifying its existence. I was able to find lots of places called Rajpur, but none that matched the information in the article. The Suppi Block and Sitmarhi district are also verifiable places, but articles about them did not mention Rajpur. If another editor can verify this, I would be welcome to change my support of deletion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Rajepur, Sitamarhi. Sourced stub now. —SpacemanSpiff 20:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as a verifiable place - agree a move to the standard naming convention is in order. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a verifiable place per SpacemanSpiff. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a verifiable place, but it shouldn't be in all caps. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Rajepur per WP:BOLD. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instinct (electronic sports team)

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

Nominating using recent consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Boss (electronic sports team) as precedent. As MLGPro/MajorLeagueGaming.com is a primary source see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#MLGPro as situational Teancum (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant, reliable, 3rd-party coverage. And (completely off the deletion topic) in the unlikely event that the result is "keep", the article needs some very serious work. It's borderline incoherent. --Slashme (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I did find this press release but press releases don't establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swallowtail Inn

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

WP:NN film. Findsources shows a fair number of g-hits but most are trivial. Unable to find substantial coverage in WP:RS. Related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayana Sumoto closed as delete. Toddst1 (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two reliable sources that reviewed it are mentioned in the article now. I think Animenation counts as a reliable source as well, but I'm having trouble finding where the actual reviews of things are, and what blogs are considered notable reviewers. [26] Dream Focus 19:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can filter results based not just on keyword but on domain and subdomain as well. So to remove the Animenation forums, you would toss '-site:animenation.net/forums' into your search query. --Gwern (contribs) 20:16 20 August 2011 (GMT)

DreamFocus, does this edit summary mean that you don't know if reliable sources exist and what they might say since you don't read Japanese, but you'll vote keep anyway? Just asking. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I don't see how this here is a reliable source, or how anyone could claim that "The 60 minute Swallowtail Inn adult anime DVD will retail at $29.95 beginning October 12th" establishes notability. It's a mention, nothing more. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second reliable source I was speaking of is Animatric which Farix removed from the article. [27] Dream Focus 01:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see: You didn't hear that. What part of Wikipedia:ANIME/RS#Unreliable don't you understand? Toddst1 (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animetric is quoted by others considered reliable sources in many places. This includes after the original owner sold to someone else. [28] If it was considered reliable before, I see no reason why notability would suddenly vanish after it changed ownership. Anime News Network has hordes of reviews that quote them along with other notable sites. Dream Focus 17:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only quoted by a PR department in a press release, which will use any positive quotes to promote their product. But that doesn't allow the reviewer or their website to become a reliable source for reviews. The anime and manga wikiproject had already reviewed the website before and found it to fail WP:SPS. —Farix (t | c) 18:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fps magazine mentions it. [29] Links to at the end where to find things mentioned in that issue. But if you want to read everything in the issue, you have to buy it, they just showing you a preview of what was featured there. Dream Focus 17:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is only mentioned as part of a catalog, which is is still not significant coverage. In fact, catalog entries are specifically excluded from WP:NOTE. —Farix (t | c) 18:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some who agree that if an anime company quotes a site, then that site is notable. The current discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Is_Animetric.com_a_reliable_site.3F Dream Focus 23:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting one line for PR purposes does not allow a website to pass WP:SPS regardless of how you try to split that hair. —Farix (t | c) 00:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DF, it seems you don't have consensus on that discussion you reference and the "some who" is you who. It's almost disingenuous of you to bring that discussion up in that context. Toddst1 (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a link to the active discussion. Some means me, Jinnai, Calathan(for reviews done by its original owner), believe its a reliable site, with Gwern not stating an opinion and you and Farix considering it to not be a reliable site. Dream Focus 01:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's not what they said. Nobody but you is saying that the site is reliable. You really didn't hear that. Toddst1 (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they did. Read what they wrote. Also, Gwern just commented, clarifying her position that it is a reliable site. And don't try to hide this since it is relevant to this AFD. Dream Focus 01:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DF, you said "Whenever someone in the industry quotes them on their product, that should count as notable." Do you really not understand that if someone in the industry quotes them on their product this just as easily suggests that it's NOT a reliable/independent source, especially since there doesn't seem to be a single reliable source that says that your website is a reliable source? For instance, if company X cites blog Y about X's product, and we don't know editorial policy etc., might it not simply be that company X pays the power bill for blog Y? Drmies (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its quoted among other notable anime review sites. They don't just choose a random blog. And there is no reason to believe they received payment in any form. Did the review sound forced? Did they give good reviews only to one company? They send out copies of their stuff to all the major reviewers, an indication that those who know about this sort of thing consider them notable, and then quote the ones that give them good reviews. Dream Focus 03:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Its quoted among other notable anime review sites." Cite them then. Because I haven't found any reliable sources that has republished anything from Animetric so your statement is WP:BOLLOCKS. And being sent "copies of their stuff" doesn't make a website reliable. Especially when the reason the website received the taps was because of previous positive reviews and the company was sending the tape to get a positive quote that the company can then use in their promotions. —Farix (t | c) 03:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, they quote three different Anime websites for reviews, and everyone agrees the others are notable. Dream Focus 03:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, a company cites three things, two of which are deemed reliable (perhaps), so the other one is reliable too? Wow--what logic. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A is a reliable source because B and C are reliable sources and quoted in the same press release? That is a logical fallacy because the status of B and C as reliable sources has noting to do with being quoted in a press release. —Farix (t | c) 10:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 2 reviewers per Dreamfocus. I cleaned up the CSE hits as well. --Gwern (contribs) 20:16 20 August 2011 (GMT)
~~Week~~ delete Only one review from a reliable source (maina.com) currently exists. Animetric is a self published website by an author who has not been vetted as a "expert" via WP:SPS and is therefore not a reliable source. (WP:ANIME/RS#Unreliable). The AnimeNation blog entry is merely an announcement based on a pressrelease and doesn't meet the qualification for significant overage as required by WP:NOTE. —Farix (t | c) 13:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like a pretty hot flick. But reliable coverage is missing, and that it's animated and Japanese doesn't mean it doesn't need reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: only two sources in article, one of which is explicitly a blog, the other of which has been viewed by WP:RSN with skepticism (though not outright rejection). Brief mention (mostly just a plot recap) in The Anime Encyclopedia. No real evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one seemingly reliable source, mania.com, is referenced in the article, which makes me doubt the subject's notability. Sandstein 06:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hostmate

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

WP:NOTDICT Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. furthermore, a google search seems to say that this isn't even how the word is used generally, and that the subject of the article is not notable in any of its meanings. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete why in the world does Wikipedia let new users create articles on their first edit? What a waste of our time, as well as new editors.</rant> W Nowicki (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary.SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation at the actual album title once there is more to say than that it is going to exist at some point. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Wilson Disney Album

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

Prod removed by author without explanation. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL; the only source given in the article is a blog and a search for sources turned up only more blogs and forums. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - While WP:CRYSTAL does allow some yet-to-be-released albums to have articles, I don't see how this one qualifies. There seems to be a great deal of doubt as to whether this album will ever be released, or if its very existence is anything more than a hoax.

Also, note that the article's creator, ParksAsher, just yesterday created a duplicate of the article here. I mention this firstly so that, if the consensus here is to delete, the duplicate will be deleted along with the original. Secondly, while ordinarily I would assume ParksAsher simply didn't know about redirects, he created this page immediately after altering the AfD banner on Brian Wilson Disney Album. So that means he created a duplicate of an article which he knew was undergoing deletion discussion, which is very suspicious to say the least.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article creator has added a reliable source that came out within the last 24 hours that corroborates the existence of this album. However, I am not inclined to withdraw this nomination quite yet, as existence ≠ notability, and WP:NALBUMS states that "Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release" (original emphasis). I will withdraw and recommend keep only if a couple of additional reliable sources are found. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There should only be one article for the album "In the Key of Disney". If there are duplicate articles, keep one, as the album has been confirmed. If "Brian Wilson Disney Album" is the only article left, simply move it to "In the Key of Disney". --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VERIFY. This album, when released, is sure to garner coverage by reliable sources, but that has not happened yet. No prejudice against recreation at In the Key of Disney when that happens. — Satori Son 21:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article creator has added a reliable source that came out within the last 24 hours that corroborates the existence of this album. However, I am not inclined to withdraw this nomination quite yet, as existence ≠ notability, and WP:NALBUMS states that "Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release" (original emphasis). I will withdraw and recommend keep only if a couple of additional reliable sources are found. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There should only be one article for the album "In the Key of Disney". If there are duplicate articles, keep one, as the album has been confirmed. If "Brian Wilson Disney Album" is the only article left, simply move it to "In the Key of Disney". --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all such articles to Brian Wilson and Disney or a Disney music article until there are enough info and sources to justify a standalone article such as this and not run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. — Jeff G. ツ 22:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atmoz (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Between Delete and Strong Delete-While the creator of the article has indeed added a somewhat reliable reference to the section with the link to the blog, I cannot let this article go on, mainly because of the fact that the second paragraph is eating at me like a swarm of no-see-ums. I've yet to check out the blog, but it sounds like a thinly veiled copy of what would be on the blog. And if the creator has resorted to creating another copy of the article, then it should be deleted. Belugaboy^{cup of tea?} 14:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Divy (name)

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

WP:NOTDICT Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Furthermore, in its current format, this article in the English Wikipedia is not particularly usable unless one already can read Hindi. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipeida is not a baby names listing website.SwisterTwister talk 20:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - per SwisterTwister, this isn't BabyNames.com, this is Wikipedia.org. Belugaboy^{cup of tea?} 18:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Agreed that Wikipedia is not a baby naming site. But I don't understand why this article is any different from the article Frank or Mabel or Laura (given name) or any other article on given names. The article definitely needs cleanup, but I think its worth keeping it. That said, I should add that it might be difficult to find reliable sources for the article. — Fιηεmαηη ^[talk] 17:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A dictionary article can be about the word, but an encyclopedic article must be able to discuss the topic as well. In the case of articles about given names, where there are no notable people who bear the name in question, the article becomes a dictionary definition. I did a quick search for "Divy" in Wikipedia, and found no suitable candidates in the first few pages. I'd say this can be deleted for now, but after a few notable Divys appear, it can easily be recreated. --Slashme (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In WP:NOTDICT it is clearly mentioned that Wikipedia can have articles about names. The difference between a dictionary entry and Wikipedia entry is given at WP:NOTDICT#Minor differences. — Fιηεmαηη ^[talk] 09:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arduino compatibles

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

Very detailed list of a family of computer boards. In my view, it falls firmly into the link farm / directory area. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. On 13 August 2011 Andy Dingley Split this content from Arduino. In its original location, there was a strong consensus that it belongs in Wikipedia (no allegation of it being a link farm or directory) with many editors adding to it, but there was also a consensus that it was getting a bit large and dominating the page, so the split/move decision was a good one. Now, one week after the creation as a separate page, it is being proposed for deletion. In my opinion, this page is one of the best and most useful parts of Wikipedia, and not only should it not be deleted, it should be improved even further and submitted to Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually proposed for deletion, by the same nominator, within hours of the page being created. That's the sort of support that makes the whole project worthwhile. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep this list seems to fall under WP:LISTN to some extent. A simple google books search shows that there is much discussion in reliable sources of arduino compatibles as a group. Furthermore, this list seems to me what the notability guideline calls a "cross-categorization list", about which the guideline states: "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y")" It seems to me that in the absence of consensus for guidelines for establishing notability of such a list, and given the fact that the subject of the list as a group is notable, it is more than reasonable to rely on the consensus of the multitude of editors who have had in-depth and lengthy discussions about splitting this off from the arduino article (see Talk:Arduino#List_Of_Arduino-compatible_Boards_and_Shields) and who have done an excellent job and put in a lot of high-quality work on this article. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A totally verifiable list with a very discreet scope and clear general notability for open source hardware. The complete list of boards compatible with Arduino is limited, and since Arduino is the preeminent leader in this space it makes clear sense to retain the list. Clearly needs cleanup and patrolling for spam or other accuracy issues, but worth the effort for sure. Steven Walling • talk 21:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The information is verifiable, and there is coverage for whether or not something is Arduino compatible or not. [30] Dream Focus 04:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We seem not to have an article on Arduino compatible, which would appear to be very desirable, if not absolutely necessary, to provide context for this list. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I redirected Arduino compatible to Arduino#Arduino-compatible boards. If this was a bad move let me know. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Although I tagged the lede as too short, since it gives the reader no idea whatever as to what these computer boards do, I read the Arduino article and see that these boards are important in the robotics field, and also that the two articles fit together quite well. Others have justified retention of this list better than I can, but there is no reason to delete this article. Perhaps expansion of the whole field is justified in the two existing articles or a new one. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any point in writing a lead for an article when admins seek to delete it as soon as it's created? If policy is so obviously far more important than content, why should readability matter at all? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the admin who proposed deletion appears to be acting in the role of an ordinary editor, and of course any editor can propose deletion. I can even see his point in that to the untrained eye it is hard to distinguish a well-though-out list that was created because of consensus on tbe Atduino talk page and a link farm thrown up by someone wanting free advertising for their boards. That's why it is a proposed deletion instead of some admin just deleting without discussion. I know the hasty deletion attempt leaves a bad taste in your mouth but actually the system is working, Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It goes further than WP though - At the Hackspace (where I've been offering printed copies of this article as posters), a place which ought to be a prime recruiting ground for new WP editors with a huge amount to contribute, WP is becoming even more of a joke. First at the Hackspace list it was claimed that "all list entries must meet WP:N" and so entries were deleted on that basis, then the infamous 2N3055 AfD, and now the joke is that WP wants to delete the Arduino too. What should be a WP outreach target thinks instead that WP is a farce, on the basis of failed AfDs. Everything on WP is visible - nominators need to realise that their Serious Admin Bizniz has consequences beyond making themselves feel self-important, and those consequences can affect the public perception of the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point, and something that should get a wider audience than just here. -Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When a list becomes long enough to be hived off a main article, this would appear sufficient to blunt claims that the resulting page is a link farm for otherwise non-notable products, even if that is not obvious from the history of the page in question. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, should this be located at a better name? Like List of Arduino and Arduino-compatible boards? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"KEEP. Not strictly an encyclopedia type article, but wonderfully informative for someone (me) who has just started learning about micro processors and only know of Arduino. Computer storage is cheap. Keep it around. (user AAARONSMITH)67.172.122.167 (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Nisar Hussain

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

Minor government official with no indications of notability. Prod removed by author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There wasn't any notable coverage on Google and Yahoo search.SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:V. Being the secretary of land and revenue for a Princely state is equivalent to a cabinet rank, but unfortunately i cant find any source to corroborate this claim.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do note delete as I am still verifying information on this individual from related family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.153.225 (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That won't help, as word of mouth is not considered a reliable source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Stafford

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

Unable to find any nontrivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced WP:BLP. J04n(talk page) 11:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:BIO. Yoninah (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

On account that the article has been sufficiently corrected for opposing points of view and potential biases, nomination withdrawn for Simon Chesterman, however I will press that One Nation Under Surveillance gets deleted. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Chesterman

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

The subject of this page created this article. About himself. This is a procedural AFD, but the rule of thumb is that if you are notable enough, someone will create an article about you — conversely, if you have to create an article about yourself, it probably means you weren't that notable anyway. I propose to either remove the wikipuffery, or delete the article entirely until someone without a COI feels motivated enough to rewrite the article. I should add the man's resume may sound impressive, but the "Asian Journal of International Law" was created in 2007 in a board meeting probably chaired by the subject himself, and only published its first issue this year. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 11:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The COI problem is worse than I thought -- One Nation Under Surveillance also needs to examined for deletion. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for spam.--Wahwahpedal (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rhodes scholars are usually notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that sweeping statement. Look at this list of Rhodes scholars which was cited in the article and you'll find that most of them fail WP:ACADEMIC. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 15:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:ACADEMIC. He is clearly a very intelligent person, but so are 90% of professors in the Times Higher Education Top 100 Universities. In addition, the article cites mainly the subject's own works, and serves as a list of summaries of those works. This is not a neutral biography but a promotional piece. A search on Google brings up very few third-party sources which could help build a biography anyway (not that Google is a rock-solid measure of notability; it's at least a good indicator in this case). —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 15:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 with a GS h-index of 19. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The H-index score is unfairly distorted because of his extensive tendency to cite himself (60% of the time, going by one book), in addition to his prolific authorship of books that do not require peer review before publication. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think, despite the COI, that he does pass WP:PROF#C1 (the journal editorship probably isn't good enough for #C8, and I don't think his awards pass the bar either, but only one criterion is needed). I just made a pass over the article cleaning out some of the worst of the puffery there. If the subject continues to edit in the same manner, user sanctions may be warranted, but I don't think we should let user misbehavior guide whether we keep or don't keep article content. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the concerns of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY override this though? If this is kept, we are sending a message that encourages individuals to start articles about themselves. I prefer if we delete the article without prejudice and simply wait for an independent editor to restart it, should one ever be interested. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not how things work. Notable articles being started in a COI manner is not a valid reason for deletion. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should generally strive to follow the guideline followed in WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, that is, we should strongly discourage autobiographies; either through very strict deletionism (just for matters of COI) or by ensuring that "autobiographical articles have been a source of dismay to their original authors". From WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY: If you create an autobiography you must have no promotional intent and must be willing to accept it being neutralized ... or even deleted if it comes to that. I believe we should be especially strict on the matter, especially to compensate for the fact this piece of promotional wikipuffery was allowed to exist for over one year. Of course Simon Chesterman might pass some GNG criteria, but to let his original article stay is hardly "strong discouagement" at all! Thus, we should wait delete and rewrite (though the best course of discretionary action would be wait for a random interested person to write about him). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is notable by Wikipedia standards, and all I see is a crusade by you against him because of your current rage against people who are pro-government or indicate pro-government tendencies on Singaporean politics articles. Your behaviour is alarming, especially considering there is an active RFC/U against you. You have to take a step back from the area totally. There is no such thing as "compensation" on Wikipedia. The article has been cleaned up and meets our standards. Keep. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I am suggesting deletion without prejudice. The article still has COI problems, and the article has only been minimally cleaned up -- the article still promotes him via WP:UNDUE. By the way, the guy writes about American politics; my only concern here is WP:COI. I do not object to his edits on Singaporean politicians, though I object to his participation. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a thing called "strong discouragement on autobiographies", outlined by policy. To keep this article with more or less Tempwikisc's original structure would be a most unsuitable reward for writing an autobiography. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, basically per David Eppstein. Also, GNews[31] shows that he is frequently cited in the conventional newsmedia as an international law expert, so arguably passes WP:PROF#C7. Nsk92 (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article may look neutral in its current state, but we cannot trust it because we have no idea if the original author cherrypicked reviews or favourable critics. This is why I am favouring cautionary deletion until someone neutral can start it from scratch. What concerns me is that Chesterman participates in very little academic dialogue -- while he publishes books prolifically, his books have very small citation numbers, and books are subject to less peer review. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. He has an h-index of 19. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

From "Criticism" in h-index: "The h-index does not account for confounding factors such as gratuitous authorship, the so-called Matthew effect, and the favorable citation bias associated with review articles. Again, this is a problem for all other metrics using publications or citations." Furthermore, the first review I found contained not entirely glowing reviews, contrary to what Chesterman has written. This should be a concern. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Chesterman cites himself prolifically, arguably abusively, further distorting his score. Over 60% of the citations for One Nation Under Surveillance are by himself -- you get 6 independent citations for his book, and 9 self-citations out of 15 total. The original creator of the article appears to have intentionally ignored negative criticism when writing his autobiography (this is precisely why WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is strongly discouraged!) and also uses mainly primary sources -- his own articles -- as citations for his own statements. This cannot at all, be a good state of affairs. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this does not seem to be true. His first hit on GS has 327 cites, on the first two pages there seem to be only a couple of self-cites. Do you have any COI on Singaporean matters as suggested here and here? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 23:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco 49ers draft history

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

Very long and unsourced list, don't know much about american "football" but it seems like List of San Francisco 49ers first-round draft picks already contains the notable aspects of this article Jac16888 ^Talk 10:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - That's a beautiful thing. Nice work, creator! Needs to have a notation about sources used (NOT a footnote for every pick!). Perhaps a title change to List of San Francisco 49ers draft choices would allay concerns. The list is logical, finite, and serves a useful function as a source of in-links. Very nice indeed — let's see 29 more of these! Carrite (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of San Francisco 49ers first-round draft picks is good, too. It is a very different piece, obviously, both in terms of periodization and concentration. Carrite (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep this is a phenomenal article; not done yet, but phenomenal all the same. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this a phenomenal article? All I see is a very long list, entirely unsourced and with little explanation as to what it even is, but if I'm reading it right its a list of possible candidates for the team, most of whom weren't chosen. Just looks like fanboy listcruft to me, something for a sports website, not an encyclopedia--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment here see WP:LISTN. here see google books search showing that this passes wp:listn. here see what your arguments sound like to me: WP:IDL. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at those results, it seems they all talk about the "final pick" or the player who was drafted, i.e. the content that is already included in the much clearer, better and sourced article: List of San Francisco 49ers first-round draft picks. Actually its you whose arguments come across as WP:ILIKEIT.--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

commentthree players, so at most one was first round; this list will help determine in which round players were drafted, one of greatest players in 49ers history drafted in third round, 49ers traded player to get 5th and 11th round picks. The overall point is that this list allows one to find out in which round a player was drafted and then through wikilinks follow his career from there. anyway, this is the best argument I can make, and will bow out of discussion now. thanks (no sarcasm, really) for encouraging me to refine my argument. it's been educational for me. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It still seems that the notable parts of this article are redundant to other articles: if a player was picked in the first round then its on the other list article, if they weren't but became successful anyway it should be on their individual article, all that's left here are the non-notables who never made it.--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL draft is not like the NBA draft. In the NBA, just about every star comes out of the first round and there are only two rounds, so why worry? In the NFL, while a page listing just the first round picks is interesting trivia, the entire draft is very important. Stars are generated from all 7 rounds. This list is superior to a list covering justone round by virtue of its comprehensiveness. The other page is useful to potential users, too, don't get me wrong, but this one is an exceptionally useful piece. Including both of these improves the encyclopedia. Indeed, if this piece were emulated by a few dedicated individuals, the Wikipedia project would be the better for it. There's sports cruft and then there's encyclopedic. This is the latter. Carrite (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit:Carrite (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author of this page, and I vote to keep. I have several points to make:

The reason it isn't sourced is because the page isn't done. 1978-2008 aren't filled in, and I put a "newlist" tag on it.
I have made other pages like this for various NFL teams. No one has yet nominated those for deletion, so I'm not sure why folks are picking on this one.Ellipsis22 (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Niners suck??? :-) Carrite (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable subject for a list. Strikehold (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I'd like to see this go to userspace for now until it is ready and re-evaluate at that time. There is no doubt that the list could indeed be notable, but it's so far from ready that I think it would be best to keep it "out of the encyclopedia" for the time being.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An WP:OTHERSTUFF comparison would be that List of Boston Bruins draft picks exists in hockey, and Los Angeles Lakers all-time roster exists in basketball, so there are other long sports player lists. If the contents get too long, it could be broken up like Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster. —Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Sanzel

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

This page does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements.. This person does not have any notable credits that I can find anywhere, and the page has remained a stub with few sources for years.. Why keep it around Soliantu (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The individual meets notability requirements and the page does not meet any of the reasons to delete. Even though it has been a stub for years, lack of attention does not ipso-facto equate to tossing a stub article on a notable indivudual simply because it had not received attention. Per WP:ATD, the article is improvable. A bit of a look shows the individual and his work have been written of in multiple independent sources over a many-years period: news books g-search We have a meeting of WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. What is required is effort, not deletion for its lack. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: sometime after posting the EL " http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22Jeffrey+Sanzel%22 " above, the news.google.com/archivesearch became non-functioning. Please assume a litte good faith that when it was working, it led to the numerous sources my !vote intended. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work has begun on this forgoten article for this individual meeting WP:CREATIVE. Immediately found in searches is that his original play From the Fires: Voices of the Holocaust (there's an article just waiting to be written) has received a media attention from 1996 through 2008,[32] and Sanzel and/or his yearly modified stage production of A Christmas Carol continue to be written of in sources such as The New York Times, among others.[33] That many are behind pay walls is a hindrance, but WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE are met and we have a reasonable presumption toward notability. We should not be deleting the improvable simply because there is work that needs doing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: after posting the EL " http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_user_ldate=1989&as_user_hdate=2011&q=%22jeffrey+sanzel%22&scoring=a&q=%22jeffrey+sanzel%22&lnav=od&btnG=Go " above, the news.google.com/archivesearch became non-functioning. Please assume a litte good faith that when it was working, it led to the numerous sources my update report intended. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this AfD was transcluded on a daily log until 21 July, when it was accidentally erased. I'm relisting it here under today's log. Hut 8.5 10:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The NYT reference from 1997 is nominal at best. It's a cursory listing that the NY Times typically does about performances, and it mentions the subject in passing. I don't see any indications of notability past a mere mention. Schmidt, I realize you have lower standards for inclusion than most, but this seems especially low. Shadowjams (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The 1997 one was required per WP:V. The included 1989 one from The New York Times is (as DGG notes below) an example of those many far more substantial. As as for the slight slur, my "inclusion standards" are per WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS. No higher. No lower. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NYT refs for the other two articles seem, on the basis of the quotes, to have been substantial. The nom's argument that it hadn't been improved is, of course, directly contrary to policy; their argument that they could find no sources is no longer valid because sources have been found). DGG ( talk ) 12:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pass WP:ANYBIO--Cavarrone (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All Wheels Wrestling

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

I just PRODed this article and then realized it had already been PRODed by another editor, and dePRODed by an anon IP editor with no explanation. So we are at AfD. Appears to fail WP:NMEDIA and WP:GNG. I am unable to find any reliable source coverage of this TV show. It appears that it is just filming a pilot, which has not been picked up by any major network, and as such is too early for a Wikipedia article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Network has picked up the pilot. - Sir Pawridge talk contribs 16:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has been picked up by Speed Network, as previously stated. - Sir Pawridge talk contribs 18:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you have any reliable sources to document that? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Not notable, no reliable sources and, as far as I can tell, the show hasn't been picked up. The article can be recreated when/if it is. List of All Wheels Wrestling employees and Template:TNA All Wheels Wrestling employees need to be deleted too.TheFBH (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in reliable sources is mentioned in the article. Sandstein 06:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to National_Institute_of_Technology,_Warangal#Student_activities. This AFD has been open long enough. Since Sandstein didn't think consensus was sufficient to delete this article (and it has been relisted again since then) I'm going to close this as a redirect per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Spree

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

no evidence of notability. looks like student cruft. and original research. LibStar (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. Unambiguous advertising for the "spree" Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add notability to the list then. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined a speedy delete for spam, as editing could remove promotion. please make more lasting arguments for deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' No references, no indication of notability. Looks like someone put the flyer for an event at their school up as a Wikipedia article. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Hindu has covered the event in 2008, 2010, and 2011. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to discuss Arsonal's references. Sandstein 09:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

555 Recordings

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

This article about a corporation was prodded, but the prod was disputed by User:Chubbles citing the fifth bullet point of WP:MUSIC. This article is about neither a musician nor musical ensemble, so WP:MUSIC doesn't apply. WP:CORP does, however, and the subject of this article doesn't meet the guidelines for notability in that standard. Mikeblas (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as prod remover. I don't follow why some claim record labels should fall under WP:CORP, any more than a band or musician should fall under WP:CORP. (Both, after all, are businesses.) This is about a cultural institution that disseminates works of art, and should be determined notable or non-notable by the artistic community, not the business community. WP:MUSIC bullet 5 speaks of artist notability in terms of labels that have been around for more than a few years and have a roster of significant/notable artists; this makes them culturally important labels and therefore encyclopedic, and this label meets that definition. Chubbles (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation. It should be pretty simple to understand. Let me try to help: WP:MUSIC says it applies to musicians and musical ensembles. It doesn't claim to apply to anything else. As a record label is neither a musician or a performing musical ensemble, we apply WP:CORP to record companies to determine their notability. I hope that helps you. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now Right now there are no references, so there is no wp:indication of wp:notability of any type under any guideline. Looking at the what they've done and the history, I think it's pretty clear they could easily establish notability under the general guideline, if somebody were to turn this into a real article with real references, neither of which is the case at the moment. North8000 (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question How long is now? The article has been unreferenced for more than three years, and viable references apparently aren't available. Anything I can find is just an enumeration of the label's small catalog. WP:NOTDIR.-- Mikeblas (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent reliable sources (including the two external links), and all I could find in a Google search were mentions in Wikipedia and retailer/promotional web sites. Thus, no indication of notability. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any notable sources on Google, Google News and Yahoo search.SwisterTwister talk 00:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tommie Campbell

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was selected in the 2011 NFL Draft.--Giants27(T|C) 19:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being drafted does not meet any inclusion criteria. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, drafted status, much like being on an active roster and not playing, needs to be discussed further.--Giants27(T|C) 23:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If he was signed this year then he should be playing very soon. I think its a huge waste of time to delete the article based on him not yet playing a game and then turn around and recreate it a month later. --Kumioko (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to speculate whether Campbell will ever play in an NFL game this year or ever. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps but it defies common sense that we would delete them assuming that they won't either. I am not a huge sports watcher and I do not closely follow NFL but I have to assume that if they drafted the guy then they are probably going to want to get their money out of them. At least once or twice. Frankly with all the low quality articles that could be deleted I get a little tired of seeing articles like this get deleted and then 3 days to a month later they get resurrected because they suddenly become notable. Its a huge waste of everyones time IMO. --Kumioko (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh-round draft picks only sometimes make their respective teams. Other than that, I agree with you that the timing is off for this nomination. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Tennessee Titans have an excellent record with 7th round draft picks 2 in the last 4 years have made the Pro Bowl. Marc Mariani in 2010 as well as Courtland Finnegan in 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.81.25 (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. NSPORTS does not automatically assume notability of drafted players, let alone players drafted in the seventh and last round. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The rule of thumb for inclusion of American football players is pretty straightforward — play a game in the NFL: IN; don't play a game in the NFL: OUT. Having this rule saves us from having to parse sources for hundreds of NFL hopefuls, it's very simple and easy. Obviously, there are collegiate superstars worthy of inclusion before playing professionally, but this One Size Fits Most notability criterion is extremely useful and should be observed. Carrite (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such "rule of thumb." Nor should there be. College football in the US is one of the biggest sports, on par with NFL, MLB, and NBA in terms of TV coverage, attendance, merchandising, etc. College football players who meet WP:ATH (College athletics) or WP:GNG qualify even if they have never played a game in the NFL. Cbl62 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly IS such a rule of thumb, as recent outcomes, closed by multiple administrators, indicate. If an article is started about a college star, that's one thing, and I don't think anyone would argue with a multiple reliable substantial sources argument in that case. But here we have a multitude of stub articles about pro draftees or free agent signees cropping up and retroactive cases made "oh, they USED to be a college star, see" are not gaining traction, nor should they. Baseball players generally need to play a pro game to get in, soccer players generally need to play a pro game to get in, and the same basic principle applies to football. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly is NOT such a rule of thumb and never has been. College football players have always been allowed articles if they have sufficient non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. It doesn't matter what motivated someone to create the article -- that's irrelevant. What matters is whether or not they pass WP:GNG, and this guy does. And comparing college football to minor league baseball doesn't work. Minor league baseball is a minor sport -- never on TV, crowd sizes in the hundreds. College football is as big in the US as any pro sport -- major teams on national TV every week, crowd sizes 100,000 per game, major media coverage. College football is huge in the US and can't be compared to other amateur sports. Cbl62 (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Haven't had time to assess the sources, but here are examples of what appear to be non-trivial coverage of Campbell: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. Cbl62 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like an athlete who fails NSPORTS but is a candidate to qualify on GNG to have done something notable that is worth reading decades from now, so the lead paragraph must have the potential to be catchy. If I look at his college accomplishments, no indication of any all-league selections or school records being set on any other indication of enduring interest. While he is better than most of us to have even played in college, he is WP:Run-of-the-mill considering the number of football players each year who enjoy some success in college have not—and might never— play professionally. If he is notable to the school (though I don't believe so), he could be mentioned in the school football article. No prejudice to recreate if he ever plays professionally.—Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having reviewed the sources referenced above, I think they meet WP:GNG. They constitute in-depth coverage of Campbell's remarkable journey from Pennsylvania sprint champion through three college football programs and a two-year break working as an airport janitor after having academic problems. He made good on the third chance given to him by Cal, and he was one of only eight Division II players invited to play at the 2011 Eastham Energy All-Star Game. He also had the third fastest time (out of 300-plus participants) at the 2011 Cactus Bowl with a time of 4.31 in the 40-yard dash. Campbell is a terrific comeback story who has received significant non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. Even if he doesn't make it in the NFL (and I'm crossing my fingers for the guy), he meets GNG based on the coverage of his story to date. Cbl62 (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to Cbl62's tireless research, but Campbell still seems run-of-the-mill. The Eastham Energy All-Star Game only started in 2011 and admitted "We're not trying to be the best all-star game (to start out.)" The Cactus Bowl is a Division II All-Star game, and not as notable as Division I, so his ranking relative to other participants there is not as significant. In any event, football players are not considered notable based on practice times. —Bagumba (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not his practice time, it's the extent of coverage given to Campbell and his college career. His story is a unique one that has garnered considerable coverage in the mainstream press. Nor is it routine coverage such as passing references in game coverage or stat lines. It's feature story coverage about Campbell. Cbl62 (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and respect your perspective, although I dont agree with it. Your position is that the presence of non-trivial coverage is sufficient for inclusion, while I'm going beyond that and making a personal determination on whether those sources say he is notable. GNG allows that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." I will leave it to the administrator's determination of consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. And I'm not saying that even the slightest bit of non-trivial coverage is enough. But when you have multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in mainstream media sources, that satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Baker

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 03:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG per the few non-trivial sources found there and his awards from college.--Giants27(T|C) 19:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. Also, he did not win awards in college that NSPORTS would qualify as automatically assume notability for the player. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Undrafted practice squad player who has never played a game professionally. If and when he does, THAT will be the appropriate time to start an article on him. Carrite (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Horn

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep He is on the roster for tonight's game.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being on an NFL roster during the offseason is not an indication of notability and exhibition games do not count towards meeting WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We allow articles for all players who have been on an active NFL roster in the past year in general. After a year, it might be deletable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have kept players in the past who were on the regular season active rosters, never just for being on an offseason roster. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATH.--Giants27(T|C) 19:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Horn is an offensive tackle. Many OTs fail WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What does that mean exactly? He doesn't pass WP:NSPORT either as he has not played in a regular season game yet. Preseason games and being on the off-season does not make a player notable.--Giants27(T|C) 19:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. NSPORTS does not automatically assume notability based on pre-season appearances in NFL games. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Passes ATH 4.1 C.1 ---Freja Beha Erichsen (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, he doesn't pass WP:ATH since he has never played in an regular season NFL game. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, ATH 4.1 C.1 just states American football/Canadian football figures are presumed notable if they have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the All-America Football Conference or the United States Football League, or any other top-level professional league. Plain and simple. No interpretation is needed. ---Freja Beha Erichsen (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Playing in the pre-season does not make an individual pass WP:ATH. Thus, he does not pass WP:ATH.--Giants27(T|C) 01:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Undrafted free agent on a practice squad, has not seen action in a single professional game in any of the above-mentioned leagues. By the way, if anyone wants to save these stubs for fast recreation if and when their subjects DO play in the NFL, I've found that you can switch to the EDIT function, select all the text and copy, and then paste that into a MS Word or a Pages document. Then save that. No need to userfy on WP, you can keep the stuff on your own computer without administrator intervention. Carrite (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfication preserves edit histories.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. College football players can qualify under WP:GNG if they've had significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. Other than this article from the Missoulian and this one from The Spokesman-Review, I'm not finding non-trivial coverage of Horn in the mainstream media. Not enough IMO to pass WP:GNG. Willing to reconsider if someone can show that we've overlooked significant additional coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Washington

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick google search turns up a few non-trivial sources. Appears to pass WP:GNG.--Giants27(T|C) 18:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. He is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player not deserving of a standalone article. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL. —Bagumba (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to pass WP:GNG. Information and sources need to be added to the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Undrafted free agent whose only NFL time has been on the (inactive for games) practice squad. Wikipedia seems mean about this sort of situation but I think the line we draw with athletes is a reasonable one: professionals are automatically in, amateurs or semi-pro players are (except in exceptional circumstances) out. Nobody wants to have 30 of these sort of athlete challenges every day for all eternity — it's an in-or-out deal and hopefully new page patrollers can stop some of these at the gate. We don't want to have to gather sources and investigate sources for each and every player to come through the collegiate pipeline. It's like elementary schools vs. high schools — almost always out vs. automatically in. Deletionists and inclusionists can lock arms and sing "Kumbaya" about this. Carrite (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we need to be more discerning about run-of-the-mill college players who never play in notable professional league. GNG acknowledges that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." —Bagumba (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. He was a key player for Alabama's 2009 national championship team, and he received significant non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. College football is one of the top 4 sports in the USA, along with the NFL, MLB, and NBA, in terms of TV exposure, attendance, and merchandising. The suggestion above that college football players be automatically excluded ignores this and the massive undertaking of the College Football WikiProject to provide solid encyclopedic coverage to this area. Even under WP:ATH, we acknowledge: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage." Defensive linemen almost never get press coverage, but Lorenzo Washinton has. Examples of such non-trivial coverage for Washington include the following: Atlanta Journal-Constitution feature story. See also [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. Cbl62 (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Material Handling Equipment Distributors Association. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MHEDA Journal

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

Fails WP:GNG, no credible claim of significance, ~~parent company doesn't have an article~~, etc. CharlieEchoTango 01:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Material Handling Equipment Distributors Association. The journal itself doesn't appear to have standalone notability, but it seems to be worth a mention there. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Aside from two mentions here and here, I believe that the article would indeed do better as a mention on the association's page. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into Parent Article, it needs it. Alone this Journal's article does not have enough WP:N. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 04:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Tashaeva

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

Fails notability criteria for musicians. DonaldDuck (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator Have you conducted a search for reliable sources in the Chechen language? If so, what did you find? If not, how do you know that this Chechen pop singer is not notable? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't find any notable sources on Google and Yahoo that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia.SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The only !voter's "keep" rationale is sound but there's not enough participation here for a "keep" close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Girls on Film

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

Non-notable Web series. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Guardian source in the article is reliable, substantive, and third party. Other sources to establish notability under GNG are Den Of Geek and Moviefone. gnfnrf (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Age of Atlantic

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

Non-notable comp--PROD was denied by adding an unreliable(?) source citation. The only assertion of notability is that it is amongst the first of compilation albums from a subgenre of rock. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added two refs from Billboard magazine at the time and several more references from that magazine seem to be available. BlackCab (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response This just shows that it exists. No one is saying that it's a hoax, simply that it's unimportant. Can you establish that this is a notable album? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important and influential budget priced single-label sampler album (not a retrospective "comp") of the period. Further refs here and here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a consistency issue. The article on the follow-up album - released to capitalise on the success of this album - has been discussed, and kept, here. Similar arguments - this album included songs by notable artists such as Led Zeppelin, Allman Brothers Band, Buffalo Springfield, Yes, Delaney & Bonnie, etc., and promoted them to a wide audience who would have been unable to hear their recordings on UK radio - apply here with greater strength. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative possibility could be to merge this article with The New Age of Atlantic, and rename the article, say as Atlantic Records sampler albums. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage in reliable sources. Of the references provided so far:
1. The The Age of Atlantic at Progarchives.com is a member in a bare list. Even if the Progarchives is a reliable source (and that's debatable) this is not a "significant" piece, and thus doesn't satisfy the general notability guidelines.
2. The Billboard Sep 19, 1970 piece is a one paragraph product announcement, routine coverage also does not demonstrate notability.
3. The Billboard Dec 19, 1970 piece is an even smaller product announcement.
4. The blog piece, ST33, is a blog and thus it reaching the status of a "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is deeply in question.
5. The "Age of Atlantic" sampler google books search tells me nothing?
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1 is untrue - the article contains a full review of the album. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Is this a professional review that passes muster per WP:ALBUM? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete substantial coverage needed. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Malbec (band). Redirecting per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Miller

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

nominated previous under BLPprod but tag was removed. Despite 23 references listed, there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Warfieldian ^(talk) 14:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - To Malbec (band). As the nominator points out none of the references are notable, and some are a nonsense. Strikes me as a vanity article/autobiography. --Deadly∀ssassin 08:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xSEmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Hv4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5871,2431731&dq=sidney-miller&hl=en - article was published 2 years before he was born and refers to a magazine publisher
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/music/la-ca-foster-the-people-20110626,0,2070721.story - doesn't mention sidney miller

The google link referred to above is talking about his father, Sidney Miller Jr., which is the person being referenced in that sentence. The L.A. Times link is about Malbec, the band that Sidney Miller was in, which is what is being referenced in the sentence where the reference is placed. Is there anything specific that makes it sound like a "vanity article/autobiography"? User:RandBFan1980 —Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Per WP:MUSICBIO, "members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article". The subject has been a member of Malbec and The Knux, both of which currently have their own Wikipedia articles. In the event that either Malbec or The Knux become the subject of a future AfD and get deleted, then Miller's notability might be revisited — but as long as both bands' articles remain, I think we have no choice but to keep Miller's article too. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Richards (author)

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

Delete. Completely unreferenced BLP does not appear to meet notability requirements for biographies. Notability as a journalist has not been established. Works as an author are self-published, as article clearly states that the subject owns Mirage Publishing and publishes and markets his own books. The links are highly commercial. Article was created by Cosmicordering (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who is clearly the subject himself. Yworo (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been completely rewritten so all of the original author's text has gone. This person is well known and notable, because he has written a lot of books (some as sole author and some as co-author). A web search returns a huge number of webpages about him or his books. Snowman (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then by all means add some reliable sources so we don't have a completely unreferenced BLP, which in itself is grounds for deletion. Yworo (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found him mentioned on several more Wiki articles, so the "what links here" now numbers seven articles (excluding lists and dabs). A web-search leaves no doubt that he has written a lot of books, and I have referenced some of his books with isbns. It seems inappropriate to delete a page with seven "what links here" linked articles. Snowman (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- None of this addresses the fact that none of the biographical information is supported by sources. People who self-publish can be prolific, it doesn't make their books or themselves notable. See WP:BOOK for notability requirements for books: existence is not sufficient, multiple third-party reviews are required to show that a book is notable, just as multiple third-party biographical sources are required to show that a person is notable. Yworo (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that you created those links by adding the subject's self-published books as references in multiple articles. However, self-published books may not be used as references. Books where the author also is the publisher means there is no external editorial control, which means that we cannot consider the books reliable. This is addressed in our reliable sources guidelines under the heading self-published sources, which clearly states that self-published sources can only be used to provide additional information about the book or author themselves, never for other subjects. Therefore I am removing this misuse of self-published books as references. The number of links to this article from other articles form no part of our notability requirements in any case. Yworo (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I rest my case to keep this article: I have significantly enhanced some of the sourcing details with in-line refs. Some of his books are published by John Blake Publishing, so these are not self-published books and can be used as references. The Guardian on-line says; "He is the author of several successful true crime books ..." Snowman (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Soundsboy (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... but The Guardian says that he has written a number of successful true-crime books. It seems to me that the nominator has over-egged the pudding as can be seen from the evidence that this person is notable. Snowman (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Snowman (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would expect that WP Article Rescue Squadron will need some time to respond, and more time may be needed for comments and article improvements. Snowman (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A newspaper talks to the man about his books and his plans to make a film. [51] A different newspaper has an interesting biography about him. [52]. Seems notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Searching Google news archive for such a common name gives thousands of results to sort through. If you add in the word "author" you still get a lot of results because some newspapers list "author" before the name of the person writing the article. Dream Focus 03:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: little evidence of depth of coverage or especial notability, with most of what little coverage that there being apparently the result of the topic's promotional efforts. A brief web-only blurb (not an actual article) about him as a crime-write on the website of one newspaper (but does not bother to review any of the books), mention of the messy failure of a book project on the BBC website (whose main topic was the book's topic, not Richards) and discussion of a proposed film (which presumably came to nothing) in a local newspaper. Stephen Richards: he wrote some books that nobody wrote about, didn't in the end publish a book about somebody infamous, and didn't write a movie about some other infamous people. Doesn't really do it for me, I'm afraid. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources. The Guardian page contains only a PR blurb reproduced elsewhere on the Web, and the Northern Echo story is mainly about the movie, not the writer. Sandstein 06:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Here!

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

Notability isn't even asserted--delete per WP:MUSIC/WP:NOTABLE. This is one of several thousand compilation albums that aren't special. I gave it a Google and found nothing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find much outside sales sites, and a passing mention on Ralph McTell's website doesn't really cut the WP:N mustard. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a significant album, following up on the success of The Rock Machine Turns You On. It was the second big selling sampler release in the period. It was released at a critical time just as folk rock was becoming commercial in the UK, and helped jump start that process. It preceded the release of several of the records sampled, such as The Pentangle and The Sallyangie. Difficult to find refs online as there is not much of an archive of UK music newspapers. I've done my best to improve the article. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NFS@Home

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

I am unable to find anything that shows that this software is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find third-party sources on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 02:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a BOINC project like there are many on Wikipedia, and the Number Field Sieve project it supports is actually quite important. --bender235 (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That does show some notability, but in the case of Wikipedia - it doesn't show any. Joe Chill (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What I mean is that just because something is notable to a niche group does not mean that it is notable by Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia's standards. Joe Chill (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge probably into Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing and General number field sieve#Implementations. I should note the NFSNet link goes to NSFNet, something totally different (mis-spelled). That needs to be fixed, as well as the red links taken out from the template. Articles need to be written first before they can be navigated. Please do not take personally. This debate is not about if the project is "important" but if there are reliable independent sources in the article, and there are none. Many other self-sourced articles on projects also need to be cleaned up and merged or deleted too. I did a double-take but this seems nothing to do with either the Network File System (NFS) nor @Home which you might hit with a simple google search. W Nowicki (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as per above; no substantial coverage in reliable sources is mentioned. Sandstein 06:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dakoda Armstrong

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis article meets the criteria set for professional motorsports athletes, which states the driver must be a professional and non amateur. Dakoda, races in the ARCA Racing Series for Cunningham Motorsports, a development team for Penske Racing as well as for Thor Sport Racing in the Nascar Camping world truck series. He generates his income through these pursuits. 18:03, Jbe201112 talk 7 August 2011
Delete per lack of biographical sources on Google and Yahoo. I think that even if Dakoda could pass WP:BIO and others, there are still few sources that could be appropriate for a biography at least that what I saw on my search. SwisterTwister talk 01:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep passes GNG - Google news search found [53][54][55] and hundreds more. Favoid (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:V#Notability, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." And I can see no evidence of such sources in the article. Sandstein 06:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Glover

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

Delete. This person at first seems a notable subject. I even started to clean up the article. However, it became evident that there are no significant independent sources to confirm notability. The article appears written by the subject (own name at bottom of article) and the citations are all published in minor or vanity press. Even his book is self-published. Overall, fails notability for WP:ACADEMIC. WWGB (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 09:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost nothing on GS. Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing on Bing and Yahoo, and I wouldn't call this mention notable.SwisterTwister talk 21:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF, and the sources given are completely inadequate to support the text of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shriya Jha

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

Fails GNG. No evidence of notability. Just two minor roles in 2007.--Cavarrone (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't find notable links on Google and Yahoo for an encyclopedia page.SwisterTwister talk 03:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - No notable sources from Google search. Only sources are very obscure websites and forums. Does not pass WP:NACTOR. No page on Imdb. And the only reference in the articles does not contain a word about the actress. — Fιηεmαηη ^[talk] 15:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was in two Telugu films in 2007 (mainstream ones with wide releases etc). And those are lead roles not minor ones. I think she just makes our WP:ENT criteria. ("significant roles in multiple films").--Sodabottle (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to the article Bhajantrilu, the movie was not considered successful, nor does it have much hits on the internet. And I couldn't much references on the other movie Gita (or Geetha). So in what way are these movies considered widely released? — Fιηεmαηη ^[talk] 17:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the article about the movie Bhajantrilu, in the cast section, this actress is not present. In all the articles about this movie I found by Google (like this) it seems clear she doesn't have a lead role. However we're in 2011, if she has done nothing before 2007 and nothing until today her career doesn't seem notable nor worthy to be enciclopedic.--Cavarrone (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wild thing 10k

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

Delete. Non-notable race, fails WP:EVENT. WWGB (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mad monk 10k

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:RECENTISM, WP:EVENT, WP:PROMOTION, and WP:COI. (and probably copyright too) BusterD (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a historical, annual event, there are many similar articles on wiki Tough Guy Competition Spartan race Canadian Death Race — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaa-adventure (talk • contribs) 09:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 23:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Braves–Mets rivalry

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

The following deletion proposal was submitted to deletion review, where contributors decided to list it here as a new AfD. See previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Braves-Mets rivalry (2nd nomination). Sandstein 08:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should be deleted. Most of the page is a reference to the Yankees and IMO there aren't enough reliable sources to support the questionable notability of this page to exist. Arnabdas (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very well sourced article. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this well sourced beyond the 5 year period? Arnabdas (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree it is well sourced for a 5 year period? What policy or guideline is this 5 year rule based on? Rlendog (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unlike the other rivalries up for afd, this one seems fairly well documented. Spanneraol (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can you really say that? The only documentation of the rivalry is within the late 90's. Arnabdas (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The only documentation of the rivalry is within the late 90s." Even if that is true (and there are certainly sources available at least for 1969 as well, and almost certainly for the early naughts), it is still well and more than adequately sourced. Rlendog (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Frankly I don't like these kinds of articles, but that's not a valid delete reason, so I'm not using it. The aritcle appears to be well-sourced, if poorly written and organized, but again those aren't valid dleete reasons. I do think this type of content would be better covered on the main articles, seaso articloes, and playoff articles, but that's a reason for merging. - BilCat (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how is this well sourced? Sure there are multiple sources for a brief 5 year period, but a 5 year period doesn't warrant a rivalry article on wikipedia. Arnabdas (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per what guideline or policy? Rlendog (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs a good deal of work, especially to de-Yankee it, but it meets notability guidelines. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What notability guidelines are you talking about? Has this rivalry stood the test of time? No. Have there been numerous sources documenting the rivalry since the inception of the Mets? No. Aside from the late 90's, there isn't any reason to even consider the two teams a rivalry. The Reds-Cardinals and the Orioles-Yankees are bigger rivals who have stood the test of time longer than the Mets-Braves. Arnabdas (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reds-Cardinals didn't have nearly the level of sourcing as this. Orioles-Yankees, as I recall, was deleted very easily because there was one source total. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adequate sourcing to establish notability. Rlendog (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adequate sourcing for a 5 year period, but not beyond that. A 5 year rivalry does not establish notability. Arnabdas (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is adequate sourcing over that period to establish notability. This "5 year rivalty" objection has no basis in policy. Rlendog (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This article does not meet notability guidelines. We decided to delete the Reds-Cardinals rivalry page for that very reason. There were not enough notable sources depicting that rivalry just like there aren't enough now. This rivalry was strong in the late 90's and really no other time besides then. It smacks of tunnel vision and is a complete joke of a write up. I ask the editors here to show me how this article meets notability criteria over the Reds-Cardinals and list all the reliable sourcing that talks of the rivalry OUTSIDE of the late 90's matchups. I hate deleting articles, but fair is fair and despite my own numerous attempts find reliable sourcing to reference the rivalry and expand this article, there simply have not been enough...and definitely not as historic as the Reds-Cardinals. Arnabdas (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course you vote !strong delete, you're the person who brought this nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any Red-Cardinals rivalry is older than Mets=Braves, but unfortunately, despite several editors' (including myself) best efforts, virtually no sources could be found to support it. This one has plenty of available sources. Rlendog (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Brenton

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

An Australian musician with 3 self-released singles. No reliable sources can be found. The source from www.silobreaker.com in the article redirects to a blog. Source from www.starobserver.com.au is a user created article. Fails WP:BAND. Prod was contested by creating editor. Bgwhite (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Thejamisonparker (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a site which records official positions on a national itunes chart which means it meets the criteria for the WP:BAND (Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart). Thejamisonparker (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Australia, the national music chart is ARIA Charts. Aria includes physical and download sales. Bgwhite (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail notability - not finding any reliable source coverage at all and he's never charted on the ARIA Charts. Orderinchaos 08:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources (social media only), not on the official charts.--Ben Ben (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It doesn't seem that notability has been confirmed, as I didn't find any third-party sources that were notable.SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jus Reign

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

A YouTube comedian. Only able to find one semi-reliable source. Unable to find other reliable sources. Article only has YouTube sources. Prod was contested by creating editor. Bgwhite (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete until such time as this fellow actually gets coverage for his pervasive presence on the internet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per A7 by Versageek (non-admin closure) Jarkeld (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Smith (producer)

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

This article was approved from AFC (after being declined several times) by what appears to be the subject of the article. Conflict of interest issues aside, I do not believe that the subject of this article qualifies as notable. Most of the sources are unreliable (either self-written or blogs) and the one claim to notability appears to be a sort of WP:BLP1E thing. There is also the concern that the subject is underage and I believe for their own protection should not have an article about them. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A laudable start to what looks like a very promising career, and the subject looks likely to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article in the future; but isn't there yet, per the very small range of independent reliable sources providing coverage so far (as listed in the article, there's just one, although the article author has been given advice about what type of material to include). I will note, however, that the age of the subject isn't really relevant; there are a great many Wikipedia articles on younger celebrities, and a great many younger Wikipedians, so an intersection between the two is not a substantial concern in itself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claims in this article are not valid cliams to notability. For example, the article states, "In 2009, Smith was ranked by many online blogs as the highest-paid Youngest Producer of all time." This is cited to a single blog post, from 2011 (not 2009), in which Smith himself was interviewed and said that his goal was to receive an award recognizing him as the youngest film/television producer of all time. That's not the same thing at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Hersfold already mentioned: non-notable at present. It was never approved at AFC by an independent AFC reviewer: Kevjr97 has a COI as far as the subject is concerned. Jarkeld (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all potential sources appear to be either self-published or trivial in nature. A nice attempt at an article though; too bad the effort will go to naught. C'est la guerre. --Jayron32 05:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources present are mostly sps or trivial --Guerillero | My Talk 06:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject isn't notable just yet. The subject and/or author being underage, or having a COI, aren't necessarily reasons for an article to be deleted, but notability certainly is. Many of the claims in the article which would indicate notability cannot be verified to reliable sources as far as I can see. sonia♫ 08:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be recreated if the subject becomes notable due to coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 06:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RefRef

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

Another user was trying to nominate this but it kept misfiring for some reason. Anyway, not-notable software, still in development, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any assertion of future notability of this program is a case of WP:CRYSTAL. One very brief article by slashgear titled "Anonymous may be testing a new attack tool" and a blog entry are not sufficient per WP:GNG. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: This is software made by Anonymous, it's pretty much going to be their new LOIC, sysadmins might want to learn about this to find out if their webservers are secure, if it can't be kept, a merge with Anonymous_(group). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalfEnergy (talk • contribs) 10:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was the one who tried to list nominate this. I agree completely with the reasoning of Jethrobot MadCow257 (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guus Boone

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

Guus Boone fails all 9 notability criteria for academics WP:ACADEMIC, no academic position is mentioned, no indication of excellency in his field of study (or former field? no publications after 2002). There is also no indication that he might be notable in any other field. Smytegelt (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Dutch-language Wikipedia deleted an article with the same title in 2009 with the comment "we doen hier niet aan privacyschending" (we do not breach privacy). I found a few citations of his work on Google Scholar, but nothing about him on Google News or Google News archive. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Guus Boone has written several history articles and some books, mainly on the subject of Dutch Calvinist missionary activities in the Dutch East Indies. For that reason he is mentioned in the Digital Bibliography of Dutch History. In his field of expertise he obtained a PhD. Wikix (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is something wrong with the way this AfD nomination is formatted. The article is tagged with a WP:PROD tag rather than with a WP:AFD tag. Looks like the nominator did not follow the instructions at WP:AFD correctly... Nsk92 (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed it now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies for the problem with the template, but I am new here, and wasn't able to find the correct template. Thanks for fixing it! Smytegelt (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Not every published author or scholar with a PhD is notable. I see nothing in Boone's article to suggest he's notable, and I don't see substantial coverage in secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Wikix: The Digital Bibliography of Dutch History aims to list all scientific publications on Dutch history. Therefore, inclusion in this Bibliography is no indication of notability as an academic. A PhD is no indication of notability as an academic either, at most it is an indication that someone is possibly an academic. Smytegelt (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete no indication he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems clear from the evidence (few publications, no academic position, few or no citations) that he does not pass WP:PROF, and there is nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Iacone

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

Fails WP:ATH (never played a game in the NFL) and WP:GNG. The only references that I found pertaining to his "playing for the Eagles and Patriots" is in a speech at the Haverford School ([56]). He fails GNG undoubtedly, as I could not find sufficient coverage of him anywhere. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was the greatest football player in West Chester State University history, setting the school's records for most rushing yards in a season (1,461 yards in 1962) and in a career (3,979 yards from 1960 to 1962). I've begun to improve the article, and there are a number of sources covering him, including The New York Times. Cbl62 (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references you have added are trivial and consist mainly of game stats. Every college football player receives similar coverage. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not so. He's probably the best player in the school's history. And one of the article from The New York Times devotes two full paragraphs to Iacone. Very, very few college football players get two paragraphs of coverage from the most important newspaper in the United States. Bear in mind, also, that access to newspapers from 1960-1962 is limited, so there is likely to be a whole lot more out there that is not freely accessible as the New York Times. Cbl62 (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best player for a program that is not even notable enough to have an article, mind you. Obviously we have different opinions regarding the coverage Iacone received, so it is moot to argue. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No one has deemed West Chester Golden Rams football (presently a redirect) not to be notable. It just hasn't been created yet. There are many articles for sub-Division I teams, like the one West Chester's fellow PSAC member IUP Crimson Hawks football. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added coverage of Iacone from Sports Illustrated as well. He actually passes both WP:GNG and WP:ATH based on his having received national media coverage in publications such as the New York Times, Sports Illustrated and Chicago Tribune. Cbl62 (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still strongly disagree, as the newspapers you cite only discuss his game stats, with the exception of Sports Illustrated, which has three sentences devoted to him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Sports Illustrated, there's this from the New York Times and this from the Baltimore Sun. Cbl62 (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see them, but I can assume that the NYT article has a few sentences about Iacone in relation to the matchup with another school and the Sun article has a brief bio of Iacone with mostly stats mixed in. However, I am still unconvinced that he passes WP:GNG, as this is typical coverage of a college football player, Division II or Division I. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The November 19, 1961 NY Times article is 2 paragraphs as Cbl62 mentioned, but each paragraph is only one sentence, each basically stat lines. The December 8, 1962 NY Times article is a WP:Run-of-the-mill game preview article discussing the matchup between both teams. Four sentences are devoted to Iacone including 1) opponents general concern with Iacone 2) season stat line, 3) career stat line 4) his hopes to play professionally.—Bagumba (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I said above that "one of the article from The New York Times devotes two full paragraphs to Iacone," I was referring to this, which is not two sentences. Cbl62 (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK , so you were referring to the 12-paragraph article that had two paragraphs of two sentences each on Iacone and not the other two-paragraph article of one sentence each. Anyways, no worries, it made me realize that newspapers typically have short paragraphs —Bagumba (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one. ;) Cbl62 (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:GNG with WP:ROUTINE and trivial coverage. The article may mention Sports Illustrated and The New York Times in its body, but the quotes are taken from coverage consisting of merely 3 or 4 sentences (as discussed above). Fails WP:NSPORTS. He did not play a game in the NFL. He also fails WP:NSPORTS#College athletes having never won a notable national award (All-America teams dont qualify), set any notable national records, or been inducted by any general Hall of Fames (high school does not count). Insufficient coverage make it impossible to write an substantive and objective article for a standalone article.—Bagumba (talk) 08:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check again. Additional sources located. He's been covered extensively in the national press, including the AP, UPI, Chicago Tribune, Stars and Stripes, The New York Times, and Sports Illustrated. He won the Division II rushing championship in 1960, was a two-time AP Little All-American, was named All-East, and set school and conference rushing and scoring records that remained intact for two to three decades. He easily satisfies both WP:GNG and the college athlete subcategory or WP:ATH based on national news coverage ("Gained national media attention as an individual"). Cbl62 (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Change from my previous !vote. He does not seem like typical AfDs that I do not support where there is some coverage to barely pass GNG, but a notable lead paragraph could never be written about the subject. Based on a combination of the new found sources and Cbl62's incredible writing in the article, Iacone's accomplishments seem worthy that he was not a WP:Run-of-the-mill college player. Even though he doesnt meet the letter of the law in NSPORTS, he has won numerous honors, set school records, and had second highest Div II rushing mark for a couple decades. I dont have access to the new sources, but trust they are accurate. Even if they are short, WP:BIO says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." This is the case here. —Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a second look and for the nice comment. I think this one was worth saving. Cbl62 (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62's research and improvements to the article. Strikehold (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Loaded with references.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tons of references included. Passes WP:GNG.--Giants27(T|C) 16:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Now well referenced and improved. I have tagged it for Rescue. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep after yeoman page rescue work by User:Cbl62 and others. No question with the diversity of RS applied, this subject meets GNG and NSPORTS, sources indicating a persistence toward a strong legacy. This one was definitely worth saving. Fine work. BusterD (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Megacomputer

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

Doesn't appear that the term "megacomputer" is being used by anyone ~~except the single source~~(deadlinked), which happens to be the organization that created the "megacomputer". Fails GNG, NEO, sourcing policy, and the bulk of the article is a direct quote.

Delete as nominator. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note there is an unrelated use of the term for a theoretical computer that has the same relationship to a supercomputer that a supercomputer has to a mainframe, but I'm not sure that's used beyond one fictional universe. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article says that there has only been one megacomputer and it has its own article. This one is only a definition of the word. Info on the topic is already in the other article. Borock (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick look at the current DEISA web site as well as an archive of the page referenced: http://web.archive.org/web/20080307143429/http://www.deisa.org/grid/architecture.php show neither uses the word "megacomputer". So it seems just made up. W Nowicki (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely made up. Joe Chill (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drchopras

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

Non-notable doctor. This is a CV, not a biography. Also entirely unsourced BLP. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google searches yielded no reliable sources which have Drachopras as explicit subject. Unsourced. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't confirm any of the information that would support notability of the subject. Limited support for WP:V and no support for WP:GNG makes this an easy delete. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:N.--Wahwahpedal (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely non notable. Safiel (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Awards received do not infer notability as they are not major awards. Fails WP:GNG with no Google News search hits and I found no coverage in a Google News Archive search although the name seems somewhat common. A Google Scholar search produces several hits for what appears to be a different Chopra who mainly studies Carbon Nanotubes. OlYeller^Talktome 17:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment' I did some searches on the awards and found news reports of a few other people winning the Hahnemann award, but no coverage of this person. I found coverage of a dentist, a student, a scientist, and a banker with his name, but of course the article subject's a homeopathic doctor. I'm leaning strongly to delete but I'm waiting to hear back from the article creator, who I asked about further sources. (The only thing that makes me hesitate at all is that I don't know how good my access to Indian news sources is on the internet.) Cloveapple (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing on Google and Yahoo that would be fit for a encyclopedia.SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unverifiable. Non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ontario_Liberal_Party_candidates,_2011_Ontario_provincial_election#Eric_Davis_.28Kitchener.E2.80.94Waterloo.29. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 20:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Davis (Ontario Liberal Candidate)

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

A political candidate for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. This was a disputed Prod. Bgwhite (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, Wikipedia isn't a political promotion tool. He can have an article if he becomes MPP. PK T(alk) 14:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ontario Liberal Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject covered here Eric Davis (politician), which is redirected to Ontario Liberal Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 20:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Texe Marrs

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

Fails notability test. He is known as a critic of the Catholics and the Freemasons. The only sources that give any information about him, beyond just passing mentions, are blogs published by the two groups. If he was really notable other sources would have taken notice of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigJim707 (talk • contribs)

Delete: closest this topic comes to "significant coverage" is the NYT piece, which is primarily on taxpayer subsidisation of non-profit postage, secondarily on Marrs' newsletter as one of the more bizarre examples of this, and only tertiarily on Marrs himself. I would also suggest that the further out on the WP:FRINGE a person is, the more careful we should be that we have solid coverage, not just a few sensationalised and bizarre claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Besides the fact that you're just being dishonest by underlining part of your rationale that was not underlined before without noting it in a comment, your interpretation of WP:FRINGE is simply incorrect. WP:FRINGE is a guideline for fringe and conspiracy theories, not for articles about people. The article in question is about Texe Marrs, not about any of his theories. If you wish to make the case this article is not notable, you must make the case Marrs himself is not notable based on WP:Notability (people), which is the appropriate notability guideline. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I think you're correct that the WP:FRINGE guideline is for theories, I think in a round about way that's what he is getting at. Hrafn is a long time editor so let's not accuse someone with a with a good track record of being "dishonest" when there's no grounds to do so. Basileias (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the record, I'm not accusing the user of dishonesty because of his interpretation of WP:FRINGE. I'm accusing him of dishonesty because he changed the formatting of his !vote in a non-trivial way hours after he posted his !vote and hours after multiple comments and !votes had been already been posted by various editors without leaving a comment as to why he changed the !vote. 149.160.45.225 (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC) (same editor as 81.23.57.177)[reply]

I believe you are mistaken. Looking at the appropriate contributions search, Hrafn originally stated he wanted the article deleted, and later simply underlined his problem with the article to update his views. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. The NYT reporter obviously didn't take him seriously. But more questionable is the fact of him being called antisemitic being sourced to the two blogs mentioned. I think that is a problem with BLP policies, besides the general unnotability of the the guy. As the Times said everyone has a right to express their opinions and lots of people do. Borock (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he's pretty well known in the conspiracy theory world. He hasn't had much news coverage lately but back in the '90s he was getting plenty of coverage, including in USA Today regarding his Oklahoma City conspiracy theory, Fort-Worth Star Telegraph, New York Times, Associated Press, and the Anchroage Daily News. To describe him as simply a critic of Catholics and Freemasons is incorrect: he's a very flexible conspiracy theorist. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —81.23.57.177 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —81.23.57.177 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added plenty more sources, giving plenty of opportunity for expansion of the article. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As noted before, very notable amongst conspiracy theorists (who regularly cite him) and is fairly well known as a preacher. He's certainly as notable as David Icke for instance.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Marrs is a prolific publisher of his own books and has opened an internet-based congregation (Bible Home Church) for like-minded folks. He has been a frequent guest on fellow conspiracy theorist's Alex Jones' radio show (and sells a number of Jones' DVDs on his ministry's website), and has spoken at a 2009 conference for the far-right American Free Press. He is also a publisher and seller of books on various conspiracy theories, as well as an author and seller of anti-Semitic material (the website for his ministry, Power of Prophecy, offers such books as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Michael Collins' The New Jerusalem — Zionist Power in America, Brian Alois Clèraubat's Holocaust revisionist book A Greater "Miracle" Than The Lost Ten Tribes Discovered... — The Dead "Six Million" Uncovered...!, Jüri Lina's Under the Sign of the Scorpion, Marrs' own book Conspiracy of the Six Pointed Star and the DVD Off Your Knees, Germany!, which defends Holocaust revisionist Ernst Zundel). He has published and provided the forward for Edward Hendrie's anti-Catholic book Solving the Mystery of Babylon the Great and Andrew Carrington Hitchcock's The Synagogue of Satan: The Secret History of Jewish World Domination. I believe his entry should be kept primarily because his ministry is a notable source of conspiratorial and hate literature, and he himself is well known in conspiracy theory circles. Unidyne (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - While not as well known today, he used to be a popular source for the new age exposé until he was accused of plagiarism. He did at one time have best selling books from a major religious publisher. If he's been and still is being covered by major news papers, I would leave the article but it does need re-work. Basileias (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —MacRusgail (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability test. The only sources that give any information about him, beyond just passing mentions, are blogs published by the two groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red-necked Grebe (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems to be following me around today. I think it started with the article here (Tovia Singer). They're copying some of my wording and using it as reasons for deletiing parts here (Michael L. Brown). Basileias (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over his edits, and considering that he did not actually look over the sources given (just parroted another editor's statement from before when the sources were added), he could be a hounding single purpose account, but we should wait for more evidence before treating him as such. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I assumed good faith and assumed that the sources added by 81 are primarily about Marrs and/or his claims. In the face of a further delete remark on the grounds that no sources met the notability guideline, I decided to examine each newspaper article as best as I could:

-The first page from the NYT's piece is mostly about Marrs's Living Truth Ministries. It is in the opinion section, though. Doesn't establish notability by itself.

-The USA Today article (which is locked) appears to be more about a general conspiracy about McVeigh, not just Marrs's version of it. Doesn't establish notability.

-The Newsday article (also locked) appears to be about Marrs's version of the conspiracy. Could very well establish notability.

-The Energy Publisher is mostly about anti-government/anti-semitic nutjobs, and gives Texe Marrs as an example. Doesn't establish notability.

-The Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel piece (although locked) appears to be completely about Marrs. I can only assume it establishes notability until someone who has access to the full article can explain how it's not primarily about Marrs.

-The Sunday Times article won't bloody load at all.

-The Anniston Star piece discusses Marrs at length. By itself it wouldn't establish notability, but it does help in the "multiple non-trivial sources" aspect of notability.

-Atlanta Journal-Constitution is about Hillary Clinton primarily. Doesn't establish notability.

The Newsday article and Milwaukee-Wisconin Journal Sentinel do seem to establish notability, especially with the NYT and Anniston Star pieces behind them.

Additionally, there are plenty more sources on Google Books. Who here bothered to check there before saying there weren't any reliable sources?

-A Culture of Conspiracy by Michael Barkun, University of California Press

-Right-wing populism in America by Chip Berlet and Matthew Nemiroff Lyons, Guilford press

-Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies By Christopher Hodapp and Alice Von Kannon

-Bearing false witness?: an introduction to the Christian countercult by Douglas E. Cowan, Greenwood Publishing

-Between Jesus and the market: the emotions that matter in right-wing America by Linda Kintz, Duke UP

-On the edge of the future: Esalen and the evolution of American culture by Jeffrey John Kripal and Glenn W. Shuck, Indiana University Press

It seems to me that Marrs has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to withdraw the nomination since more sources have been added. I am still bothered by an article based on sources that mostly don't take the person seriously, but the article now seems to meet the notability requirements. BigJim707 (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong venue, this should go to Redirects for Deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WKQX

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

These call letters have been reassigned to a 95.9 in Watseka, Illinois. As such, this article should be deleted - not kept as a redirect. The proper destination for this article title would be an article about the licensed station currently using the call letters. The fact that deletion would create a bunch of redlinks is irrelevant. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 02:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite arguments that the call letters have been reassigned, the available sources seem to indicate that this was done as an expedient measure to protect the callsign from being used by others in the Chicago area. The buyer who bought the station and call letter assignment merely swapped the letters with a 'dark' station they also own. There's no evidence at this time that the 'new' station will begin broadcasting using these letters, but if/when they do, we can create this article in its own right. It seems to this editor that doing otherwise is ignoring the General Notability Guideline and using our Crystal Ball to see the future. -- Avanu (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Olmstead

AfDs for this article:

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

Textbook WP:BLP1E. Not really notable outside a big win. All news articles come from the time of his win, and an appearance on the 1 vs. 100 mob afterward isn't really a secondary assertation of notability. Last AFD was kept due to a crapflood of WP:ITSNOTABLEs, without any policy-based discussion of any sort. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Subsequent passing mentions in reliable sources refer to his big game show win. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BARE as a record holder that is significant. Whether the coverage is significant is an open question]]. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage of the individual outside of this one event. No prejudice to recreation if he is covered in future sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Farnham

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be some non-trivial coverage on him. He fails WP:ATH, yes, but from a quick look it appears as though he passes WP:GNG.--Giants27(T|C) 18:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I find the coverage to be WP:ROUTINE from game recaps and a few sentences of his prospects in pro training camps. He is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player not deserving of a standalone article. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL. —Bagumba (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep coverage looks like there is a notable college career. It needs to be added to the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep Played in NFL pre-season game and has had an outstanding ivy-league college career (which should indeed be added to the wiki page)24.218.52.66 (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Playing in a preseason game does not help him pass WP:ATH and neither does having "an outstanding ivy-league college career." Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - without digging deep enough to verify for sure, it looks like he was a two-time FCS First Team All-American and the 2009 Ivy League Player of the Year. If those are actually the case, there should easily be enough coverage of his college career to satisfy the GNG, regardless of his NFL career (or possible lack thereof). cmadler (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He appears to satisfy WP:GNG. Has been the subject of significant non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. Not just passing references in game coverage. See, e.g., [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]. Cbl62 (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I missed in my previous !vote that he was conference player of the year. Despite being in Division I-AA, this is a rare and notable achievement. It also passes the spirit of WP:NSPORTS#College_athletes.—Bagumba (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 19:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Allen

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tons of non-trivial sources found in a quick google search. Passes WP:GNG.--Giants27(T|C) 18:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep personally don't care for ND, but he seems to have lots of non-trivial coverage for his playing there. Needs to be added to the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. He is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player not deserving of a standalone article. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Undrafted free agent who has not played in an NFL game. There's a line to be drawn and this is on the wrong side of it. Carrite (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes ATH 4.1 C.2 by meeting GNG ---Freja Beha Erichsen (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He does not pass WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he does. He's had national media coverage in espn.com, msnbc.com and the Chicago Tribune. These are major national media outlets. Cbl62 (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about ATH, not GNG. The !voter used ATH as a rationale. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. WP:ATH says the following re college athletes: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include ... players who: ... Gained national media attention as an individual." Cbl62 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Freja Beha Erichsen references specifically that he passes ATH 4.1 C.2, which is that he has played in an NFL or other professional league game. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it is not obvious to me, but please be more specific on how you believe "ATH 4.1 C.2" applies.—Bagumba (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes both WP:GNG and WP:ATH, and either suffices. Was a star in college, leading rusher at Notre Dame in both 2008 and 2009. Had substantial non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. Not just passing references in game coverage, but extensive press coverage focusing on him, including coverage in national media outlets like msnbc and espn that brings him within WP:ATH. See, e.g., [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75]. Cbl62 (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bottom line is that this is an aspiring athlete who has not played a single game professionally. I'd have more sympathy for the 11th hour argument that this was a collegiate superstar if this was actually started about a collegiate player. This is a new stub piece, however, launched after he was drafted. Teams have fans, thus the page. Athletes are treated different than politicians or businessmen or academics. Inclusion is comically easy IF AN INDIVIDUAL PLAYS A SINGLE GAME PROFESSIONALLY. Other than that, one needs to be a true collegiate superstar, award winning Big Dog to get through the gate. This is as it should be. Save the stuff and recreate the piece as soon as he plays a game. Until then, this is a crystal ball exercise. Carrite (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "superstar" rule for notability in this or any other context on Wikipedia. Under WP:GNG, a person (in business, politics, entertainment, and college athletics as well) is notable if the subject of significant non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. Cbl62 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GNG allows that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." This was a run-of-the-mill college player that does not deserve a stand-alone article. —Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the notability he received playing in college makes him pass WP:GNG and Wikipedia:ATH#College_athletes Truthsort (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasons as others that said delete.--Yankees10 01:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fails WP:ATH, passes WP:GNG. Joe Chill (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it passes WP:GNG, then why are you voting delete? Truthsort (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I accidentally typed delete. Joe Chill (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 19:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bront Bird

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough non-trivial mentions for me to believe that he passes WP:GNG.--Giants27(T|C) 19:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to have achieved notability through college play.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player not deserving of a standalone article. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This isn't an article about a college superstar, this is a stub about a potential NFL player that has yet to play a game. Honor the rule of thumb. Userfy the page so material isn't lost a few weeks from now. Carrite (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes ATH 4.1 C.2 by meeting GNG ---Freja Beha Erichsen (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He does not pass WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Has been the subject of significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. Not just passing references in game coverage, but articles focusing on him as the main subject. See, e.g., [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81]. Cbl62 (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vidal Hazelton

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:GNG. [82]--Giants27(T|C) 19:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep Meets WP:GNG with existing coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. WP:Run-of-the-mill player does not deserve a standalone article. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the player ever plays in the NFL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagumba (talk • contribs)
Keep - Passes ATH 4.1 C.2 by meeting GNG ---Freja Beha Erichsen (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He does not pass WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several articles provide WP:GNG coverage of the individual:

this EPSN article about his ineligibility to play in '09.
this LA Times article about his transfer to Cincinnati
this article on his injuries while with the USC Trojans.

Hasn't played an NFL game yet, but easily fulfills WP:GNG per coverage in independent sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The real decision here is whether a player is encyclopedic if his biggest notoriety and coverage came from transferring colleges and then sitting out a year. Should GNG be blindly followed or ignored to improve Wikipedia? —Bagumba (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:ATH (due to national media coverage) per sources cited by I Jethrobot and the following additional items: USA Today article, NBC Sports, CBS Sports, More ESPN, NBC Sports, ESPN. See also [83], [84], [85], [86], [87],[88], [89], [90], [91]. Cbl62 (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 19:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Rivera (American football)

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep he is on the roster. He had three tackles in yesterday's game according to this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being on an NFL roster during the offseason is not an indication of notability and exhibition games do not count towards meeting WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We allow articles for all players who have been on an active NFL roster in the past year in general. After a year, it might be deletable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have kept players in the pass who were on the regular season active rosters, never just for being on an offseason roster. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Has been on the active roster during the regular season, which, based on previous discussions, still needs to be discussed.~~ Passes WP:GNG per sources listed by Cbl.--Giants27(T|C) 19:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think being on an active roster but not playing in a game should automatically make a player pass WP:ATH. Of course, it still needs to be discussed further, which is why I am not !voting keep or delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. NSPORTS does not automatically assume notability based on preseason appearances or merely being on active roster in regular season without ever playing. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL. —Bagumba (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Passes ATH 4.1 C.1 ---Freja Beha Erichsen (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, he has never played in an NFL regular season game yet. Preseason doesn't count towards WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, ATH 4.1 C.1 just states American football/Canadian football figures are presumed notable if they have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the All-America Football Conference or the United States Football League, or any other top-level professional league. Plain and simple. No interpretation is needed. ---Freja Beha Erichsen (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you have interpreted that very badly. Exhibition games do not count. Period. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus on ATH closed that loophole on August 22 to "Have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the All-America Football Conference or the United States Football League, or any other top-level professional league."—Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. It's not likely that he passes WP:ATH but what about the general notability guidelines? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I can find on him is two stories on his volunteer work and one story on a pre-draft workout with the Bears. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Practice squad player who has not seen action in a single NFL game. Carrite (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- does not meet notability.--AssegaiAli (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. I fear many of the "delete" votes above may not have been aware of the breadth of coverage he received. Hope I'm not too late. For examples of significant, non-trivial coverage of Rivera in the mainstream media, see, e.g., [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102]. Cbl62 (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt sway me here. I like an athlete who fails NSPORTS but is a candidate to qualify on GNG to have done something notable that is worth reading decades from now, so the lead paragraph must have the potential to be catchy. If I look at his college accomplishments, he didnt exactly dominate his own conference, but did manage three years of honorable mentions. While certainly better than most college players, he is WP:Run-of-the-mill considering the number of football players each year who enjoy some success in college but neither get drafted nor ever play professionally. If he is notable to the school (though I don't believe so), he could be mentioned in the school football article. —Bagumba (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG does not require us to peer through the mists of time and verify that a person's story will be "worth reading decades from now." Nor does it require that an article have a "catchy" lead paragraph. All that is required is that the person have been the subject of significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. Based on the sources referenced above, Rivera passes that test. Cbl62 (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely correct. GNG says "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." If that isnt convincing enough, WP:IAR says to ignore a rule if it is preventing improvement of Wikipedia. Its my opinion that ignoring that the cumulative sources say this is a run-of-the-mill football player is diluting the overall quality of Wikipedia. Sure there is no deadline, but keeping these type of articles year after year will take away from improving the more notable players. The guy came out of college in 2009 undrafted, and only has an article created on him in 2011—probably just to fill a redlink on a training camp roster.—Bagumba (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After looking through the references provided by Cbl62, I still feel that Rivera fails WP:GNG, as well as WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kellen Heard

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been on the active roster during the regular season and based on previous AfDs, it still needs to be decided as to whether that makes him notable or not.--Giants27(T|C) 19:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think being on an active roster but not playing in a game should automatically make a player pass WP:ATH. Of course, it still needs to be discussed further, which is why I am not !voting keep or delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. NSPORTS does not automatically assume notability for being on the NFL roster but never entering a game. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 Non-notable because he never even appeared in a single NFL game. --nymets2000 (t/c/l) 02:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Undrafted free agent and practice squad player that has not played a single official NFL game. It's also an unsourced BLP, if you want to get technical. Carrite (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christer Isulat

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

A electronic engineer who has created custom guitar effects. Is planning on releasing an album. Creating editor is the subject of the article. Unable to find any reliable references. The PROD was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of notability. Also, it states here that 'XTR is the alter-ego of Christer Isulat', and what is the name of the articles creator? Xtr06. WP:COI. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 01:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing notable and third-party at all on Google and Yahoo to support this article.SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Relief: Hurricane Katrina

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

Does not pass WP:ORG and does not have any reliable sources to show notability. Has been tagged as needing references for three years. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. How did this go so long without 3rd party refs? --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 01:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Frater

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources about this singer/computer/website developer. Not notable. The-Pope (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 01:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing notable on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete Listverse is probably notable, but sadly I don't think he is yet. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Spearhead

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

The two sources are both personal websites, not WP:RS; a google search for " "battle of spearhead" 1545 -"under john dudley" -"took place between the French" " produces just one hit, which is a translated wiki - ie the many Ghits all appear to be copies of the same two sources, or of two wikipedia articles, this one and Edward Clinton, 1st Earl of Lincoln. If you omit the date, you get some wargaming sites but again no Tudor battle. I suspect that it is a mistake for "Battle of the Solent" (which was in 1545), but can't find anything to confirm this. This near-orphan article does not seem to be an asset to Wikipedia. PamD 07:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some detective work at Talk:Battle of Spearhead. PamD 08:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that this needs to be looked at carefully. There is now extensive discussion at Talk:Battle of Spearhead and I think this should be left to run for a few days to see what comes up. I think a merge might then be best (although really only a category or two from this would be taken), with a redirect to Battle of the Solent. However, more info may turn up on the discussion page, so I think we shouldn't jump the gun and merge it yet. Boleyn (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because none of these sources is reliable, there is no content to merge, and the title is not useful as a redirect because a) the battle is only rarely referred to as the "Battle of Spithead" anyway but mostly b) the article title is not "Battle of Spithead" - "Battle of Spearhead" is nonsense. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have looked in RS and am satisfied that there was no separate Battle of Spearhead, and the Battle of Spithead is the one referred to. Although there are possible routes by which Spithead might have transmuted into Spearhead there is no reliable source suggesting that it was anything other than a mistake by one author of a personal website and I agree with the logic set out by Roscelese. --AJHingston (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (from article's creator) The only thing I really thought worth merging was the categories, but I've added the only relevant misisng one to Battle of the Solent. Boleyn (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 19:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slugslinger

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

No third-party sources at all. The first one appears to be a source, but is in fact just a listing. Everything else is a Transformers website or other Transformers source. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Once again Black Kite doesn't bother to do the research. I expanded that first source, as it was from a book that specifically use Slugslinger's biogrpahy, motto and function in a talk about violent toys for boys. This is definitely a viable third party source that isn't "in-fiction". Mathewignash (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced Transformers article with unreliable information DELETE87.194.161.182 (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC) — 87.194.161.182 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment. The mention in Boys Will Be Boys is trivial - literally just the character's name. this does not constitute significant coverage. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - The book talks about his motto, biography and function being intrinisically violent, as proof that Transformers are too violent for kids. It's more than a trivial mention, they picked him specifically because he mentions killing his opponents, and he's a kids toy. Mathewignash (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another toy with poor sourcing, there is simply nothing here to establish notability. Trivial mentions in otherwise reliable sources do not count towards notability, as Mathewignash was recently reminded. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reminded by who? Oh right, by you, who keeps repeating it even when he's wrong. Mathewignash (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once in awhile you'll luck out and get the WP:ARS to show up and bloc vote, it's unavoidable. That you've "won" one AfD and lost about 100 others isn't a terribly great track record though, so I'd keep the cork in your champagne if I were you. Tarc (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or you might consider the vague possibility that in that case of the Maximal article, YOU WERE WRONG. Mathewignash (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, there have been articles deleted when the ARS showed up. Numbers don't matter. Assume good faith please, and stop bashing the ARS every chance you get. Dream Focus 20:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few appearances, some info about release information for Targetmasters toys, including many others besides Slugslinger, and a single commentary on the character is insufficient to require notability. Even if the commentary is in-depth, it would be a case of WP:ONESOURCE. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- yet another fanblurb with extremely poor sourcing. Attacking the nominator is not a legitimate defence of this article. Reyk _YO! 07:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite's failure to follow our deletion guidelines seems quite relevant. His spamming AFD with all these Transformer's nominations seems to be bad faith disruption because there is an obvious alternative to deletion in all these cases - merger into some larger article such as List of Transformers: Energon characters. Warden (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calling WP:BEFORE a guideline when it emphatically is not is unhelpful. Suggesting a merge of badly sourced, in-universe fan trivia into another article which is also virtually sourceless, in-universe, full of trivia, and already way too long- that's also unhelpful. Reyk _YO! 04:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm no Transformers buff but find it quite easy to find expert and detailed coverage of the topic in detail in sources such as this. The topic is demonstrably notable and just needs work per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serious question-do you just pick the first source you can find and call it significant coverage? Because you honestly just tried to argue that, because a transformers action figure has a page in a book that is a catalogue on transformers actions figures, the character is notable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources found indicate notability. Dream Focus 20:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources of dubious quality. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_I_Love_Lucy_episodes#Season_3. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 19:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Writes a Novel

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

No notability established, in spite of its status as the episode of the famous I Love Lucy. Also, no citations. I have tagged every I Love Lucy episode article with issues to resolve, but I slowly cannot wait any longer. Gh87 (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The series is patently notable and the episode was patently watched by tens and probably hundreds of millions of people in re-runs etc. Why did the episode suddenly become non notable? Just because nobody watches much now? With that many watchers do you really think a ref doesn't exist? I understand WP's sourcing requirements to demonstrate notability but also I think it unlikely this will get deleted. Szzuk (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect as below. There is nothing to indicate why this episode was particularly historic or in any way any more noteworthy than any of the other 100+ episodes. If someone can provide such evidence I will reconsider. The series itself was certainly notable, and it is commemorated at Wikipedia by a lengthy I Love Lucy article. There is also a separate article, List of I Love Lucy episodes; the episode Lucy Writes a Novel is mentioned in that list, and that is sufficient coverage for this particular episode. As can be seen at Category:I Love Lucy episodes, only a tiny minority of Lucy episodes have their own article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of I Love Lucy episodes#Season 3. Needs lots more Vitameatavegamins to qualify as a stand-alone episode. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of I Love Lucy episodes#Season 3. I think this a fair search term for a redirect to the season page. But there's no evidence that this is a particularly notable episode. Saying "a lot people watched it" is not sufficient and does not confer notability to a single episode. Things like awards for the episode or in-depth commentary on the episode by independent sources would be sufficient for an individual article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per I, Jethrobot.No evidence this is a notable episode.--Cavarrone (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for major works, every individual episode is notable, and this show is the great originator of situation comedy and its subsequent development. The rule for notability is not especially notable , ort more notable than the others,but notable . How would it be if someone suggested not including a particular major league team on the basis it was no more notable than the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 05:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The MLB team is different from sitcoms and their episodes: the MLB is live; sitcoms are produced to sell their fictions. It is unfair to compare them; would comparing apples and oranges be fair? ...Anyway, this episode may have been watched by millions in the '50s and '60s. However, there had not been a word about it from viewers or anyone else. I don't think there is a word from the press either. Even viewership should not be counted as notable, unless there is a reason. Let's not get started on pregnancy episodes, all right? --Gh87 (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that this episode (and most episodes) are not individually notable because they have not received significant individual coverage. The exception actually IS the pregnancy episodes. Lucy Goes to the Hospital was front page news. I will go add some sources to that article right now because it definitely IS notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been searching for sources on Lucy episodes as a result of my comment above. As far as I can tell there are only five episodes of Lucy that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. The Vitameatavegamin episode (Lucy Does a TV Commercial), the chocolate factory episode (Job Switching), and the wine stomping episode (Lucy's Italian Movie) are universally cited as memorable by everyone writing about I Love Lucy, so they should all have articles. Currently only one of them does, namely Lucy Does a TV Commercial, and I have added references to that article to show its notability. The other two do not appear to have Wikipedia articles but they should IMO. Also notable are Lucy Goes to the Hospital and possibly Lucy Is Enceinte. As far as I am concerned, those five are it; all the other articles in that category are not notable and could be redirected to List of I Love Lucy episodes using WP:Merging#Proposing a merger. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 16:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Javosoft

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

I am unable to find significant coverage for this company. It also reads like an advertisement. Joe Chill (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only two small mentions here and here on Google and Yahoo search, nothing that could help an encyclopedia page. SwisterTwister talk 00:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not think those pages have anything to do with the company mentioned in this article. You might get some false hits on the Sun Microsystems division called JavaSoft I would guess, perhaps from mis-spellings. Not related at all to the Czech company that pre-dated Sun's Java. W Nowicki (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actually reads more like a personal history. Content added by single-purpose account User:Pavel.precek and anonymous IP address editors. See above note; this company says it existed only for two years, hardly notable. Perhaps even merits a speedy? W Nowicki (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This local business started off in the 1990s making Amiga stuff until Commodore failed. Then they moved on to refilling ink cartridges. I don't see anything that seems likely to be remembered in an encyclopedia five hundred years from now. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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