Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 23

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coverage in Southern Living and local sources independent of the subject. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Biscuit Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Event is notable only within local area and I cannot find any non-local news coverage of it. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crumbs! Lugnuts (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nom should read WP:N carefully before nominating any article for deletion in future. WP:N does not say the topic should have coverage in international media to be notable, local media coverage is enough. Search google news, you will find them [1][2]. --Reference Desker (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, been doing this for a while now. First time applying Wikipedia:Notability (events) though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added additional sources and cited the information within the article. Nimuaq (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Still trying to understand all of the protocol, but the event has received national attention and is in the current issue of Southern Living. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwcraig97 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. It appears to be notable enough, with reliable sources. Can someone explain how it does or does not pass WP:EVENT? Bearian (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group -> this seems to be a local event
2. Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable -> I could find only coverage from Knoxville news outlets, where the event is taking place

Having said this, if it rated more than a passing mention in Southern Living then that should be enough. Jwcraig97 can you comment on the coverage? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems to be the whole 15th page: [3]. Jwcraig97, I cant find any source that suggests the event has received national attention last year. It would be a great improvement if you can provide a source for that. Nimuaq (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Knoxville, Tennessee#Culture. Despite being an "international" festival, there is not international coverage for this festival that has only been run once ever. Coverage is entirely local. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or Merge per Whpq. This one-year-old event has gotten only routine, local coverage; see Google News Archive where it scores a grand total of three hits. Maybe it will grow into a notable event, but it isn't there now. --MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 30 April 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) Baseball Watcher 16:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lack of reliable third-party sources to establish the notability of the subject. huji—TALK 22:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a difficult topic to find reliable third party sources as this is forum or bulletin board software. (software for primary sources) ... It is a popular alternative to open source bulletin boards. Talk page illustrates issues in obtaining reliable third party information. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete - There is a plethora of information available about vBulletin from third party websites. $-vrt (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sure it needs clean-up, but there are plenty of sources to prove notability. Tavix |  Talk  01:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep References are a mess, but the subject is clearly notable. Difficulty in sourcing is not a reason for deletion if the topic is notable and there are at least sources on that. If there are suspect claims that are sourced to self published material, challenge and remove them, but otherwise the article just needs improvement. Monty₈₄₅ 04:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are lots of sources available for this topic - see the Google Books link above. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm actually surprised that vBulletin's article is up for AfD. It's a pretty extensive article about a subject I've always assumed to be notable. There are a bit too many references to the vBulletin website, but it simply has to have enough reliable sources elsewhere to use, right? Really, aside from an overuse of primary sources, the article seems to be well fleshed-out. The only complaint I have about the content after quickly skimming is that the main paragraph's a bit short. I'd suggest adding information that establishes the notability of the subject directly after the description. --Tathar (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just noticed that the nomination says "lack of unreliable third-party sources." Shouldn't that be "reliable" instead? --Tathar (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - assuming the nominator meant a lack of reliable sources, there are actually quite a few. Some examples are: [4], [5], and [6]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - very notable topic, plenty of reliable sources available. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if anyone who really believes the article should be kept would be kind enough to actually add references to the article to prove notability? huji—TALK 00:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentThis is bulletin board software. Significant proof of encyclopaedic notability is needed. Third party coverage from reliable sources are needed.--Whiteguru (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I've already pointed out that sources are available to establish notability above. What do you believe is wrong with them? -- Whpq (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instruction set matrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article's topic is of questionable notability. Using "instruction set matrix" -Wikipedia as the query, Google Web returns 48 results; Books, 5 results; and Scholar, 1 result. All are irrelevant, being a coincidental matches of words across sentences, etc.; referring to instruction listings in table form; or are mirrors of the Wikipedia article. The article cites one reference, but it unavailable for preview on Google Books. However, given that the article claims that the topic is used in compilers to support architectures with variable-length instructions, one expects there to be more results from Google, since such architectures are not uncommon. The lack of coverage of a topic that claims to be widely relevant strongly suggests that the topic is not notable. Finally, searching for instruction set matrix (without enclosing the term in quotes) returns many more results. These results are irrelevant because they refer to lists of instructions presented in a table (matrix) format for easy reference. Rilak (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only given source is to cite the information on different microprocessors' supporting different instruction sets. The given source is in fact a collection of 36 different articles (see Application Specific Array Processors, 1991. Proceedings of the International Conference). While this information is added to the article page in 2006, it was already available on [7] in 2001 with the same sentences, suggesting that the information is directly copied and pasted from the site [8] (or from a common source). Other informations on the page lack the proper references and citations. While I could find a few sources for the Matrix instruction set on Instruction set architecture articles on the web, I'm unable to find any sources for the Instruction set matrix. This might explain the lack of new references and/or information on this article since 2006. Nimuaq (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR. Pburka (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Nimuaq's look into the reference made me notice an irregularity: The reference is supporting the statement about the ARM and MIPS architectures having variable-length instructions; and the reference is the proceedings of a conference held in 1991. However, ARM and MIPS did not have variable-length instructions until the Thumb and MIPS16 extensions, respectively, were added in the mid-1990s, and well beyond 1991 when the conference was held. So what is the reference meant to be verifying? I have no idea. Could it have been vandalism or a mistake? Looking at the first revision of the article, the reference has not moved from its present location. Additionally, looking at the abstracts of the conference papers at IEEE Xplore, I see nothing that indicated that the topic has any coverage in the proceedings in an obvious manner. As a result, the reference appears to be erroneous; and while it may have been an honest mistake, it does give additional weight to deletion by adding verification concerns to notability. Rilak (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 27 April 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. —GFOLEY FOUR— 02:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Can not find license, or any other sources that substantiate this article. Station is not licensed in the FCC records. It may have had a Construction permit but that no longer exists. Also the company that owned it went into bankruptcy. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 22:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Station never made it to the "license to cover" stage required for broadcasting and hence notability, this is just a station on paper, hence not notable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per the rationales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KBNY; this station never made it past the Construction Permit stage: it was a TV station on paper only. Since Equity's bankruptcy makes it pretty clear that this station will not go on the air, there's no reason to have this article. However, the CP should be mentioned, with source, in Equity's article. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ownership of the construction permit reverted back to Vernal LLC after Equity's bankruptcy [9]. In December 2010, another former owner, TV 6, wanted to reallot the channel elsewhere in Utah [10]. So, who knows when this station will ever make it to air. Bgwhite (talk) 18:10, 27 April 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. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnotized (Fleetwood Mac song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod. B-side of a single which did not chart anywhere, and seems to fails WP:NSONGS. Prod remover claimed notability on the grounds of radio play - this is unverified. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This has received steady airplay since the 70s, but more sources are needed. This rock anthology places it #643 in the top 1,000 songs [11]....in fact, a reference already in the article credits airplay of Hypnotized as the likely reason for Mystery to Me having received a gold album; that's the verification for its extensive radio play. Should not be considered for deletion. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out exactly where that is claimed in the reference? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second of five mentions in the book, page 125: [12]. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "It could not have been more perfect as a product for the new radio dimension"? That is not referring to "Hypnotized" - the book has moved on to the Buckingham Nicks era by page 125.Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No: "In November, their three-year old record Mystery to Me was awarded a gold album, likely due to the extra airplay the song Hypnotized was getting." Page 125. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see where that is. Even so, WP:NSONGS says nothing about airplay. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This ref calls it the album's best track [13]. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That does not infer any wider notability. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's deemed the best song on a gold album by a major group, I think it does. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the "best" song on every gold album is notable? Hardly. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point I can turn up a golden egg and it won't matter. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Fleetwood Mac have recorded many notable songs, and this isn't one of them. Show me something that would not fit in just as well at Mystery to Me. Incidentally, the article claims that the song was better received at concerts in the US than in the UK - the reference does NOT say that. It's talking about the band's musical direction generally. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A song receiving mention in multiple reliable sources and being covered by another notable band are criteria noted at WP:NSONGS. The statement 'Fleetwood Mac have recorded many notable songs, and this isn't one of them' is based on what source? 99.155.207.91 (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSONGS says "released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups" - not just one solitary cover version. Thousands of songs have been covered once. These mentions are trivial mentions, as specifically outlined in WP:GNG to be not enough. It says "sources address the subject directly in detail" and "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" - 643rd in somebody's list of 1000 "great" songs fails both requirements, as does the reference to Benifold, where dozens of songs were written, and the simple description of the song.

In the "Reception" section, only the first sentence has any sourced relevance - the rest is either unconnected trivia or unsourced. I could write a similarly sourced article on practically every song on Mystery to Me, particularly using the Rooksby book, which has a section on every song Fleetwood Mac ever recorded. The statement you quote is my statement, I clearly didn't attribute it to anyone else. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'll agree to having different interpretations of the guideline, and I'm by no means a strong inclusionist. If unattributed points of view may be entered, I believe it was a notable recording at that early point of their career, and submit that this has been verified by several sources. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's much interpretation involved in saying that "one" does not equal "several", but we'll have to agree to disagree. Let's see if anyone else has any opinions. I will say that the ASCAP award reference you've just found is the first remotely relevant piece pointing to any notability for the song, but in my opinion it's not enough. Bob Welch (musician) would be a better place for that info since it deals with two of his songs. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition of a song's 25 years of airplay is a bit more than remotely relevant. Agreed re: others' opinions. We've both spent plenty of cyber-ink on this, and there's nothing like a good rhubarb to entice others to the party. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep references look fine to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're reliable enough, but how do they infer notability? How does this article pass WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG? Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—"In November, their three-year old record Mystery to Me was awarded a gold album, likely due to the extra airplay the song "Hypnotized" was getting."[14]—RJH (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely"? Or maybe not? That's as shaky a reference as any I've seen - it can't even pretend to be sure of what it's saying. With respect to the author, there's no basis for that assumption. I'd say it was far more likely due to people buying older albums on the strength of the recent Fleetwood Mac album. Future Games went gold as well, but nothing to do with radio airplay, because it didn't get much of that. And I ask again, what has airplay got to do with WP:NSONGS? Seriously, on this basis, the majority of Fleetwood Mac songs would be notable enough for articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The author, if we accept him as a reliable source, wrote 'likely', which is what it is: meaning not 'shaky', but probably. Your observation re: impact of sales of the 1975 album may be correct, but at the moment it's original research. Airplay doesn't itself meet guidelines, but it's a secondary supporting factor, strengthened by the ASCAP recognition. Re: the majority of FM songs: if they've received coverage from multiple sources, then they may well merit articles. I won't pretend to be as knowledgeable about the group as is Bretonbanquet, and have no personal investment in this, just believe a rationale for notability exists. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But he didn't back it up with any supporting evidence. Just because he's had a book published, doesn't make his original research any better than anyone else's - it's just a passing, unsupported trivial reference. The airplay is the only factor, as the ASCAP award is for airplay - and it's actually awarded for two songs, not just "Hypnotized". The other song was "Sentimental Lady", which was released as a single by two artists and reached #8 in the US chart, therefore quite reasonably would have received by far the most airplay of the two. "Sentimental Lady" is quite obviously a notable song on many counts. The ASCAP award isn't a major award as outlined in WP:NSONGS - it isn't clear but I take a "major award" to be a big award-ceremony type award such as a Grammy, Ivor Novello or a Brit or something. A band like Fleetwood Mac has practically all their songs played on the radio. I do know a bit about the group, and I do like the song, but I don't see where its individual notability lies. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without nullifying any of your points, or questioning your knowledge of the subject, what I'm noticing on this page is a tendency to value your interpretations at least as much as those of published sources--it seems that the references, both those I've provided and those that already existed within the article, answer at least some of the concerns, yet each is in turn found wanting. Perhaps other editors will agree that notability has not been established...I know a little about other disciplines, but hopefully will not characterize published content with which I disagree as unreliable unless I can provide published content to the contrary. Relying on my own findings, well-researched as they are, is not acceptable. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the Wikipedia mantra that dictates that as long as something has been independently published, then it must be true. Unfortunately I can't do anything about that, and I'm really not suggesting the other sources are unreliable, but I do think that this particular reference that makes a passing trivial mention of the song and says it "likely" achieved something that is totally immeasurable anyway, is useless. Regardless, the point he makes doesn't make the song notable according to the guideline. I'm certainly not relying on my own findings or pushing any point of view of my own, I just want to see something that makes this song notable and satisfies the notability guidelines. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - due to failing WP:NSONGS. I actually have no issue with songs that fail this provided that they clearly have a significant amount of coverage on their own to establish notability. Preferably, however, this would actually consist of sources where the song is the main subject, not one sentence mentions. The sources found so far seem to be limited to a few sentences or so that mention the song, or a review of it in a review of an album as a whole. Yaksar (let's chat) 18:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A valid point, except I suspect that few songs, even many we'd probably agree are notable beyond doubt, are ever the main subject of an article. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't own the books listed, but the allmusic review of the song is hardly a one sentence mention and the song is certainly the main subject. Rlendog (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it just needs more refs, i added one from the ALLmusic guide, which singles out this song on the album. However, i suspect that Yaksar is correct, and what i have found is not enough, as these mentions are not full reviews of the song. I know we have probably tens of thousands of articles on albums and songs much less notable than this song, but i also know thats not an argument for including this article. well, i tried. a google search for the strings: hypnotized "fleetwood mac" "mystery to me" yield, to my reading, just enough significant hits to show the song has been talked about. its borderline, i know, but since i KNOW it got MASSIVE fm play in the 70's in N Cal, there will eventually be a source for that fact, in the meantime, it passes notability on what i can find.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that it got a lot of play on the radio back then, but according to the guideline, that doesn't infer notability. Either the guideline is followed or there's no point in having the guideline. Plenty of albums aren't particularly notable, you're right, but those album articles can be filled out with information about the songs to create a really decent, readable album article. All of the info that's currently in this song article should go in Mystery to Me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is one of the best known pre-Buckingham/Nicks Fleetwood Mac records. Sufficient sourcing is already presented in the article (the "external links" should not be ignored) and there's lots more potential sourcing at GBooks.[15] --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from your first statement, which is patently untrue, all this wonderful sourcing is tiny bits and pieces - mere mentions. Again, where is the notability? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the external links - what is the third link actually doing? It's a link to a book about Guns 'n Roses - what is its relevance to "Hypnotized"? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read it? It makes direct though passing reference to Bob Welch's songwriting, specifically mentioning Hypnotized. If you think it's irrelevant you can delete it. 99.155.207.91 (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're at cross purposes somehow - all I can see on that page is a description of the book. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I click on the link it takes me here: [16]; if you're not seeing it I'll transcribe the text, but not for a while....dinner is in the offing here, and as it is I've been running back and forth from the kitchen all day, where my girlfriend can't believe I'm engaged in this discussion.... 99.155.207.91 (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I was seeing, but I've just got a precis of the book and a lot of reviews. Let me know what it says, when you're ready of course. Real life is always more important. And I can't believe it either ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real life is marginally more important, but I confess this is fun--I'm back as a different IP because the power went out briefly, as it's wont to do in the country. The narrator, Steven Adler of Guns N' Roses, reminisces about Bob Welch: 'Check out his stuff on Fleetwood Mac's Bare Trees and Mystery to Me albums. This is when the band still flexed its blues roots, and Bob penned and sang some incredible lyrics, among them "Hypnotized" and the aforementioned track "Sentimental Lady." 99.184.134.105 (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is fun in a masochistic sort of way.. hahah.. that is a relevant quote, but I'd say it was more relevant at Bob Welch's article, as it's specifically about his songwriting rather than one particular song. Lots of good sources are being found, but I don't know that any of them establish notability for "Hypnotized". But not too many people agree with me at the moment, so we'll see ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I understand your valid points, which may well take precedence. And since when is the majority always right? 99.184.134.105 (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The song seems to have plenty of sources to satisfy WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG, including its own allmusic review. It has been covered at least by Fleetwood Mac and The Pointer Sisters, and possibly others [17]. I don't see a problem here. Rlendog (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. It has its own review on Allmusic, I didn't realise that, but that is the only source here that goes any way to meeting WP:GNG, and that requires multiple sources with "significant coverage" which is "more than a trivial mention". All other sources are trivial mentions, and notability isn't about one sentence mentions in various sources. It wasn't covered by Fleetwood Mac, it's their song. The covers appear to be the Pointer Sisters and possibly a couple of modern ones - not sure how notable those artists are. The other point is that this article will never be more than a stub. Remove the uncited stuff and all that remains is a description of the song, a review and the fact that it was played on the radio a bit, all of which can be merged into Mystery to Me. What actual substance is there of any note? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is not often I feel justified in questioning a nominator's judgement, but I think this qualifies: "So the "best" song on every gold album is notable? Hardly." Much of the rest of the nom's comment here is contentious and verging on WP:BLUDGEON as well. :I call AllMusic etc AllFail, as their coverage of the notable is entirely unreliable. I was surprised to see that they did cover this, frankly. I hate to say it, but for WP to use AllMusic as a standard for inclusion at AfD is somewhat erroneous, although not nearly as erroneous as using AllMusic as a standard for deletion. Certainly more erroneous than using IMDB as a source for trivial facts. Anarchangel (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that WP:NSONGS is an axe-grinding mess; it has paragraph-long assertions that contradict WP policy, despite the presence of said WP policies right next to them, and paragraph-long mini-essays in footnotes.

Anarchangel (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are able to question my judgement, then I can question yours. To take a random assessment of the "best" song on an album and thus automatically claim it as notable shows a surprising lack of thought. How on earth can Wikipedia decide on the best song on any album? Maybe you'd like to extrapolate on my "contentious" comments, or retract your accusation. All my comment here has been aimed at trying to get people to address the notability question, something which you also have not effectively attempted to do, in fact you undermine it with your unsubstantiated attack on Allmusic, the very source which claims this song to be the best on the album. You say the source is unreliable, so which source for the "best" song on the album would you like to take? I don't know who you're criticising for using Allmusic as a standard for deletion, because I have not done so. In my last post, I did quite the opposite. Amid your contradictions, I struggle to see why you want to keep this article. Any problems with WP:NSONGS is not an issue for this page, and it is all we have, bar WP:GNG, which this article still does not pass. It will undoubtedly be kept, maybe more one-line trivia will be added to it and it can reach GA. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1369 Coffee House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable, no major independent coverage, there's really nothing useful here. →ROUX ₪ 19:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - single source is the college newspaper, Google search turns up no coverage, company website has no links to news coverage of any kind. Seaphoto^Talk 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence for notability as per WP:CORP Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: Frankly, this could be easily speedied under G10 as an attack page. Even if you trim out the anti-Starbucks diatribes, the startlingly POV verbiage and other such nonsense, all we've got here is a local coffeehouse without any prominence or significance outside the borders of Cambridge, and not all that much within it. Fails WP:CORP and the GNG by leaps and bounds. Sole contribution of a SPA who put this together in 20 minutes a few weeks ago and hasn't been seen since.  Ravenswing  15:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Though a coffeehouse staffed by wastrels sounds like my kind of place, this is fairly obviously promotional and has no encyclopedic significance outside of its community and customer base. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, is it about time to call it per WP:SNOW? Sadads (talk) 01:27, 29 April 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. —GFOLEY FOUR— 02:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus (Australian band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Listing incomplete nomination by Vlad.Ureche (talk · contribs). Jared Preston (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete, can't find any coverage of this band, although I'm hampered by 'Nexus' being a fairly common word as these things go. If the coverage in the Daily Telegraph can be confirmed, that would tip me over onto the Keep side. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Had a search and I can't find anything at all about the band (although, as Lankiveil says, it is hard to search due to nexus being such a common word). If anyone could verify the Daily Telegraph quote or that they played at the 2001 NRL Grand Final, I would probably be persuaded to change my !vote. Jenks24 (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. Would be happy to be persuaded otherwise with some decent refs, but I can't find any.Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Henggeler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. I prodded this article in 2009[18]and it wasn't contested but was never deleted.[19] Since the prod, the subject has had several more parts but none of the roles have been significant as required by WP:NACTOR and this is reflected in the article. AussieLegend (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than removal of the prod notice and an interwiki link, the only improvements to this article in 17 months have been removal of a reference and addition of an unreferenced table, both completed in a single edit in March 2011.[20] --AussieLegend (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possibly speedily. PROD was in place for over a year. The fact this this article exists is an administrative oversight. Pburka (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is not an administrative oversight. This article was deleted in November of 2009 and recently undeleted because the PROD was contested. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Her IMDB listing[21] only shows minor roles in TV movies and series. Looks like a few projects are coming up, but at this time notability as an actor is not met. Google search turns up nothing substantive, and even the article itself says she is best known as a guest on one episode of a TV show. Seaphoto^Talk 20:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Airlines Flight 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable. Aviation Safety Network has no listing for this incident. I could find no news articles on it either. William 17:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. Pburka (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivia. WP:NOTNEWS. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Minor tailstrike incident, not even worthy of a mention in any Google-able English-language news source. The only mention I could find of this was some chatter on internet message boards and a host of photos. The airplane, 9M-MRJ, was not a write-off and was returned to service so not even a hull loss. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 03:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the deletion discussion for Malaysia Airlines Flight 91 linked above is completely unrelated, and actually happened a good two years after to this incident, and on a different aircraft (9M-MRI). --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 10:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Flight 91 article was included automatically by the deletion template. I suspect that the names are close enough (differing by only one digit) that the software thinks it was a discussion about the same article. Pburka (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't make the inclusion standard at WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not particularly notable tailstrikes (rear fuselage scrapping on the runway at takeoff) do happen. Dump fuel land as soon as possible and polish out the dints. MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not even serious enough to be mentioned on the ASN Wikibase, let alone the main ASN database. Mjroots (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Jessica Dykstra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable model lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Google the name "Jessica Dykstra" and 100 pictures of her pop up. That makes her notable in my book.

• Comment – It may make her notable in your book, but not according to the Wikipedia guidelines WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - References only verify she's a model without providing any further info on why she's notable. She might or might not be notable in the future but currently it fails WP:NACTOR. Nimuaq (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Up and coming young model, little info available about her other than on her ModelMayhem page. answers the "who's that girl" question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.211.65.85 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC) — 167.211.65.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment – "Up and Coming" and " little info available about her other than on her ModelMayhem page" are reasons to delete the article, not keep it. Non-notable subject matter, such as this article, is routinely deleted until there is an indication and support for Wikipedia based notability. ttonyb (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - For the Up and coming young model comment, see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Nimuaq (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I agree with the first comment. Google her and she pops up alot. That's enough for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.41.214 (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - For the "Google her and she pops up alot" comment, see WP:GHITS. Nimuaq (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm allowed to disagree with that, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.18.26 (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Sure, but in order to help the discussion, you should also explain why a certain number of search results is enough for you rather than one reliable source that also verifies notability, at least for this article alone. I think sources like this one: Week's best celebrity photos - NYPost support the argument for notability more than thousands of search results. I mentioned WP:GHITS and WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, to focus more on finding reliable sources than checking the number of Google hits or the future potential of the article. Nimuaq (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - So, if you're saying that it supports the argument, does that mean you are changing your vote to keep? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.18.26 (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If reliable sources with significant coverage exists, I'll change my vote. Nimuaq (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Has some worthwhile credits as a model, but they don't mean much in the absence of reliable coverage, and none of the offered sources in the article demonstrate that, while Gnews only turns up hits regarding other people of the same name.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - IMHO, If the NY Post defines her as notable enough to be included in best celebrity photos, then she certainly qualifies to have a WIKI page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.211.65.83 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC) — 167.211.65.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment – How does this meet any Wikipedia criteria for inclusion? ttonyb (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep. shes obviously known enough to have a wiki if one was made for her, she shows up on google, and she has a successful career modeling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.25.41 (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC) "keep" I googled her and found her there. The NY Post listed her as a celebrity. These are significant enough reasons for her to have a wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.59.178 (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Keep" with the comment "Google the name "Jessica Dykstra" and 100 pictures of her pop up. That makes her notable in my book" was added by me. As were the comments, "I'm allowed to disagree with that, right?" and "So, if you're saying that it supports the argument, does that mean you are changing your vote to keep?" to Nimuaq. The banner at the top of this debate seems to suggest that if you don't log in, your vote doesn't seem to matter. I have my reasons for not logging in these days. I logged in to post this comment simply to clarify. I vote to keep this article as its creator and someone who has been editing wikipedia articles for over 2 years now.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – AfDs are not votes or is the outcomes based on the number of Keeps vs. Deletes. I am rather surprised an "experienced" editor would not be familiar with the purpose of AfDs and that AfDs are used to provide a polling process that takes into consideration the discussion and the strength of the discussion argument. If one specifies keep and specifies no reason or an invalid reason (i.e., 100 pictures of her pop up in a Google search) the admin will most likely ignore the keep argument in favor of the delete arguments. I suggest you read WP:AfD and WP:POLL for further clarification and a better understanding of the process. ttonyb (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As much as Google results have been criticized in this debate, I still believe it is a decent measure of a model's celebrity status. What else can you judge a model on other than her pictures? I also like the point someone else brought up about her being in the New York Post's celebrity photos. The New York Post is not some rinky dink little local paper. In fact, if you read the article, she is based out of Los Angeles and used to be out of Miami, not New York, and a New York paper called her a celebrity. She did an episode of Burn Notice, an Axe commercial and a photo shoot for Playboy. I firmly believe it should be kept.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added the tag at the top of the page because the atypical number of never-made-an-edit-before voters here (using non-policy based rationales—and, judging from below, still using them) is indicative of someone rallying friends to come and vote. I would have added the tag even if all these voters registered accounts beforehand. That said, I can't resist commenting on the Google image search argument. Even if such an argument was legitimate, the subject would likely fail it in this instance. A couple dozen photos of her from one red carpet event doesn't indicate notability as a model in the slightest. It barely even proves that she's a model at all.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a guess, but I think the reason we are seeing so many non-user never-made-an-edit-before votes is because I threw a link to this article on her facebook after I created it. I think her friends and fans are clicking the link, seeing the banner and voting. Sorry if I inadvertently created a hassle for Wikipedia.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Well, that certainly justifies the use of the {{Not a ballot}} banner at the top of this AfD. ttonyb (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - she's been on a prime time TV show and a commercial in addition to being a successful model. She deserves a WIKI page because she is talented and note worthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.123.176 (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC) — 67.81.123.176 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment – How does this meet any Wikipedia criteria for inclusion? ttonyb (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Here is my question: How does this article meet the criteria for deletion? The burden of proof, I would say, is there. I reviewed the reasons for deletion and I do not see how this article meets any of that criteria. It does not infringe on Copyright, is not Advertising, does not fork, etc... the only objection is that some people may not find her "notable enough"? Subjective, not measurable. I vote to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.211.65.83 (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Per WP:DEL#REASON which states "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline." which is WP:NMODEL in this case. WP:NMODEL states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." The sources does not support these criteria, but it (WP:NMODEL) also states that "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." So, per WP:GNG which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.", I have voted to delete the article. However, as I stated before, if reliable sources with significant coverage exists, I'll immediately change my vote. I think this source (which is first linked in the discussion by myself) is an independent and reliable source but the main concern is if its a significant coverage, as stated in WP:GNG ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Nimuaq (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per 167.211.65.85. While they !voted Keep, "Up and coming young model" and "little info available about her other than on her ModelMayhem page" are clear signs of being non-notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the articles I've written or worked on are for minor league baseball players. Terms like "up and coming" and "little other information available" apply there to people who are deemed notable.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Regardless of the type of article, without Wikipedia defined notability, "up and coming" and "little other information available" are dead give aways that there should not be an article on Wikipedia. ttonyb (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Ho hum. I've commented on so many afd's I wonder why others think the article is notable. Szzuk (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The closing admin might note that many of the keep votes are very suspect. Even i must admit that "pops up a lot in google" is a far cry from the GNG keep rationale.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfe Chase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS. Fails WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It clearly fails notability criteria for films. Why isn't there a CSD for this?. Or does A7 qualifies?. --Legion fi (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – it probably falls under WP:SNOW. ttonyb (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree, but sometimes admins and other editors tend to be over zealous about the application of the criteria. If I was to tag the article for a SD, I would most likely receive a swiftly post in my talk page in the order of "Doesn't meet the CSD. Prod it or take it to an AFD". Even unexperienced or insecure admins may decline the SD request if it is not specifically in the CSD. I could pledge the fifth... err I mean the WP:SNOW, but then I could get into a discussion about it not even been a guideline and other things like WP:IAR. I guess that is why I would wish WP:SNOW could get into the CSD. So many pages, like this one, wouldn't need the bureaucratic process of an AFD. --Legion fi (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON#Films. As the film exists, and the article itself is then not a hoax or vandalism, we do not "speedy" it simply for being non-notable. Indeed, a film written and directed by a 14-year-old, "might" have gotten the attention of the press or media... but this one did not, and so it fails WP:NF. Failing NF is not and should not be a CSD criteria, but rather simply a reason to be more diligent in our searches. An AFD and its discussion is the way to deal with such. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The station, according to the FCC doesn't exist. I can't find a license for it, and the article has no sources other than that. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 18:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems that the station had received a construction permit from the FCC around the time of the creation of the article, but hadn't got to the stage of receiving a broadcast permit. (For the distinction between the two, you can always try Wikipedia. The Construction permit article has a section on broadcasting permits that explains.) The company that owned KBNY, Equity Broadcasting, ran into financial difficulties in 2008 and presumably this meant that KBNY was put on hold. However, I was able to dig up a record on the FCC site here, that says that an application for an extension of the construction permit was rejected in January of this year. So, as the station never made it on air, the construction permit has run out and there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage that would satsify WP:GNG, it would seem that deletion would be the way to go. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Agree with Flowerpotman. Station never made it to the "License to Cover" stage (which is what is needed to be a legal broadcast station). They never got that far, so they were just a station on paper. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. KBNY is a construction permit only at this point. There should only be an article if the station ever makes it on the air (which is unlikely given Equity's 2008 bankruptcy and 2009 auction of 60 TV stations. But the construction permit should possibly be mentioned, with source, in this section next to the other construction permits that were presumably canceled when Equity sold off its assets. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree that a mention of the construction permit might be appropriate in the Equity Media article. Just one point that might be worth mentioning though is that (AFAIK) the FCC recycles call signs. (I know they have recycled radio callsigns, which is something I picked up from looking at various Wikipedia articles over the years :)) So, if it is mentioned, possibly it should be mentioned that KBNY was the callsign for this proposed station to avoid confusion for any future articles. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. According to the FCC, KBNY was deleted on January 7, 2011. New World Man (talk) 03:46, 29 April 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 various and obvious reasons listed below. Materialscientist (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assis, Armando V.D.B. On the Cold Big Bang Cosmology. Progress in Physics, 2011, v. 2, 58-63. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

A citation of a six-page portion of the entire book. Reference is (of course) the book itself. E Wing (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: Wikipedia is not a repository of links. E Wing (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An article on a single article in a scientific journal? I see no evidence that this six page article is sufficiently notable enough for its own encyclopedia article. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I declined the latest speedy (it's been speedy deleted twice so far) because I could see context (but not understand the maths...) and it wasn't short. The same author has created Cold Big Bang, which I consider a valuable article as there is no mention I can find of Cold Big Bang theory in Big Bang. It could do to have more references than the one it has - the publication which is the subject of this article - which perhaps indicates a certain bias. The topic is discussed in scientific circles, and I've added another link into the CBB article. This article, however, I feel is not necessary as anyone looking for Cold Big Bang won't be coming in via this title, and they can access the Progress in Physics article via CBB anyway. Peridon (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete With respect, this Wikipedia article is not, respectfully, on a single article in a scentific journal, it is on the specialized subject within the article, its on how the author reaches this controversial result. The source is extremely difficult to follow for the layman. Assuming information is important to the reader, important to scholar research, college reasearch, remembering the subject is on the Big Bang, an extremely controversial and important scientific subject. The fact that this article seems to be "a single article in a scentific journal" follows from the simple fact: we do not find over the internet an article with such detailed calculation obtaining the same results the article claims. The cosmic background temperature 2.7 K is teoretically derived, the Dark Energy seems to be putted on physical grounds as a quantum effect, a quantum cosmological effect for instance, and so on. I am not saying the author is correct, I am saying this result within the article is importamt enough to be informed, to be opened to the people, I think, within the Wiki under encyclopedical terms. I worked hard for two days to open the calculations. As you may verify, I explicitely putted INCOMPLETE within my edition tags, when I created the article. Surelly, the article must be improved and I am working it, but, as I said, some concepts within the article are hard to follow. Carolingfield (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With that title on the article I don't know how we were to draw any conclusion other than that it was about this article.You even specified the page numbers. If this is an obscure scientific concept that most people are never going to hear about, let alone understand, it is probably not notable enough for its own entry. At the very least the title has got to be changed. More importanly though, if you want an article on this subject you need to provide sources that discuss the subject. As it is written now it is bascialy an abstract (sort of) explaining what is in this article, using only the article itself as a source. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title is the name of the object being explained. The object of the Wikipedia article in question is the article. Why Should I put another name? What about a Shakespeare book? Should I put another name on this subject? Is it an encyclopedical object? We write about the book, materially, or about the content? Respectfully, Carolingfield (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do write articles about certain books, but those are about the whole book, not an excerpt thereof. Also, the author itself is not notable. For the author's claim to be notable, there must have another source supporting his arguments. E Wing (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is some substance to this, merge without a redirect to whichever article most directly covers this part of the field. Otherwise, delete. bd2412 T 19:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. The title of this Wikipedia article indicates that it is supposed to be about Assis's article which appeared on pages 58 to 63 of Progress in Physics -- not about the underlying topic of the "cold big bang". No indication has been given that the article itself is notable (as opposed to the underlying topic being notable). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete This is useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.24.194.242 (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete Valuable font. We knew from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.24.76.230 (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete Brilliant work from Assis. Should be encyclopedic. We got it from here, specially from the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.24.71.86 (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment obvious IP Socks are obvious. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "brilliant work" from a non-notable author doesn't count. E Wing (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete Eu quero que fique. O pessoal da universidade acessa por aqui. I wanna saty. Guys from here the university dowloaded from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.24.195.178 (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete Henrique, Cláudia, Paulo and Carol - It's a extremely important and difficult to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.246.64 (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not Delete Please do not delete this article - Alex, Fidélio, Castro e Carol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.24.195.178 (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete please do not delete this article-jade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.101.214.80 (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete I'm here beclause i want. There are some people here. I think Wikipedia is free, no? So I VOTE NO BECAUSE I WANT, Politely. Yung Son Ja —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.24.195.178 (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No way in hell that this passes the general notability guideline. Single publication in a fringe journal.TR 21:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per same reasons as other editors above. IP sock definitely in use above. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 21:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, Mrs. milonica, what is ip soks? Is this some configuration i must do regarding my count? Internet says it is some cel phone connection via notebookm something related to internet connection, but sorry, i am not an expert in the subject.Carolingfield (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means that if you look at the evidence above, those who are saying "do not delete" appear to be the same person using different IP addresses. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 22:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No! It sounds i am a persona non grata, hence, if you want (I mean Wiki), i close my account. Is it? Carolingfield (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. It could be just some meatpuppeting by different IP accounts under a common denominator (students under the same class perhaps?). E Wing (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please note - this is NOT a vote by numbers. It is a discussion where we put our opinion (delete, keep, redirect, etc) in bold and then say something relevant as to why we think that. Whenever there is a great flood of IPs (anonymous posters) or SPAs (accounts created to vote here and nowhere else), their posts are usually ignored by the adnministrator who closes the discussion. Sock is short for sockpuppet, which is comparing posters to little puppets controlled by one person. This is not allowed on Wikipedia in these discussions, and when it is investigated it can mean someone will get blocked from editing. If anyone wants to make remarks after they have given their main post (like I have done), they should put 'comment'. Please note also that floods of new posters in one of these discussions tends to increase the opinion the opposite way from the way they want. In other words, it doesn't work. Believe me - I take part in a lot of these discussions, and as an admin sometimes close them. Peridon (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carolingfield, you have made a valuable contribution to Wikipedia by putting up the article Cold Big Bang. That can grow into a really good article. This one can't. It doesn't fit the sort of article we have here. You can probably make more articles that do fit, and use your knowledge to help edit other ones. We do not want to put people off from editing. But you must remember that not everything does fit here. Peridon (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got colleagues researching over here, and I sent an e-mail the page would be deleted. I am alone here. I went out to eat (very hungry). Carolingfield (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So am I - I'm just starting my evening meal at midnight (my time). We don't mind people posting in these discussions so long as they say something of value and don't try to pretend they found this by accident. We do know the difference. To keep this article, they will have to show how it does fit Wikipedia. Not how they think Wikipedia should be, but how it is. The people here who have said 'delete' are all experienced editors - people who know the rules and who don't like to lose an article that belongs. But we know when one doesn't belong. It is easy for someone who looks things up on Wikipedia not to know how it works underneath - just as you can drive a car without knowing how the engine works. But you must know not to put petrol in a diesel car... Peridon (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. All of you are incredible and valuable people, augmenting the knowledge. Contributing to this terrific Encyclopedia. I will try to learn more.Carolingfield (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.24.77.188 (talk) [reply]

• Delete The journal about which the article is written is purely not notable by any means. This article also fails WP:NOT (specifically WP:NOT PAPERS). Wikipedia is not a collection of papers or a place to summarize publications from academic journals. Any editors need to start providing strong arguments if they truly believe that this article should be kept. Statements such as "I like it", "It does no harm", "It's useful", etc. do not constitute as valid points and are considered "arguments with out arguments" –Dream out loud (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Moxley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a local figure with no wider impact. Previous WP:PROD was removed; editor updated the link in the article but did not address the notability concern. Pburka (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Local press coverage is routine and as can be expected for a county councilman. Office is not high enough for notability to be presumed. No indication that he is a regionally important political figure. Cullen328 (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent. In the past here at AfD, county legislators, supervisors, councilmen, and the like are almost never kept, especially for suburban or rural counties. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chi-Chi Okonjo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. This article indicates that the subject is an investor and philanthropist, but makes few convincing claims of notability. I can find no substantial coverage of this individual in reliable sources. The only sources I can find, e.g. [22][23], accuse the subject of corruption but I'm reluctant to add such info to the article unless it comes from more reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sources have been provided in the article, and few are available elsewhere. Notability has not been clearly established. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:31, 24 April 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 without prejudice. I'm not sure if the circumstances surrounding this domain's purchase is notable enough for a standalone article but if someone wants to write one with sources from a neutral point of view then go for it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise.co.uk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. Google search failed to find coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources other than trivial mentions (nothing substantial about the company was found). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I guess the fact about the domain name is vaguely interesting. The problem is that the rest of the article sounds a little bit promotional, which coupled with the fact that the primary contributor has done little else makes it look like it may be somebody who works for/has been on one of these cruises. Bob talk 07:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just clarifying this...while the domain name purchase did receive some coverage, it is not enough to prove notability for the company as a company. This thus fails to meet WP:COMPANY standards. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - agree with Bob above, looks self promotional by a cruise participant. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:52, 23 April 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The WP:CSD#G11 speedy deletion of this article was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13#FASTSIGNS (closed) and the article was referred to AfD. This is a procedural nomination made in my capacity as DRV closer, and I express no opinion about whether the article should be deleted or kept.  Sandstein  16:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a well-referenced article about a large and well known franchise company. They have a store in my home town. Concern has been expressed about the capitalization, but that doesn't bother me because the company consistently capitalizes its own name. The article is written from the neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Completely normal, non-advertising article on a company. Referenced and everything. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This company is a large franchise operation, with stores all over the United States and in five other countries as well, whose franchises, at least, are frequently mentioned in the local media in the areas where they operate. The article has already been correctly moved to Fastsigns with normal capitalization instead of FASTSIGNS. There are no significant problems with this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this may be a case of ignoring the rules, but I am not seeing significant secondary coverage of this company. Lots of google hits, and news hits too, but they are mostly of the "local store opens" or "business support charity type of thing". The article cites are blurbs about executive changes. On the face of it, the company fails WP:CORPDEPTH. That said, the company is indeed a large franchise and well known. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Seaphoto^Talk 20:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Company completely fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^T/_S 20:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep company has received coverage from a variety of publications, seems to meet notability guidelines, and I suspect that most chains with 500+ stores will likewise be notable. Monty₈₄₅ 22:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In my opinion, the references added by Metropolitan90 address any concerns about WP:CORPDEPTH. Well done. I've Wikified the article a bit. Cullen328 (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Most of the sources appear to be little more than reprints of Fastsigns press releases and are not useful for establishing notability. But the NY Times article and the Hellriegel book seem sufficient, especially as this is a very well-known franchise, making it likely that with more work, additional independent sources could be found. Msnicki (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will County CrackerJacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NOTABILITY -- this is a "team" that has yet to play a game and as yet has no players; article is written by the team's media relations manager who is posting it at the request of the team owner, and who has repeatedly deleted COI tags attached to the article. Gnews hits are one local article on the formation of the team, and an announcement of a celebrity to speak at their luncheon. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD was submitted on April 21, but Twinkle messed up and didn't put it on the AfD log, for some reason, so I'm adding it to the log on April 23. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Response I still don't know what the issue is. Our first game is June 1st. We have 20 guys on the roster but it hasn't been finalized yet because the season hasn't started. Our website is crackerjacksbaseball.com if you want to check out the team. The league we play in is midwestcollegiateleague.com if you'd like to check that out. All I was asking for was a little time to gather information and let everything get finalized. One of the teams in the league, the Rockford Foresters, have a Wikipedia page and there is no issue with that whatsoever. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikegncb34 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Addition The following teams have yet to play as well and have Wikipedia pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Land_Skeeters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha's_Vineyard_Sharks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikegncb34 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS – Muboshgu (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources, no verification, no notability... Wikipedia is not a free web hosting server. If the other articles are the same, I say go ahead and delete them too as WP:SPEEDY for WP:ADV or WP:COI or whatever else they may fall under.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - I have no doubt this team exists, but does not seem to be notable in the sense of being appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Rlendog (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Consider nominating Rockford Foresters and Martha's Vineyard Sharks for deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Al-Ajani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:V. This article is a hoax. There is no evidence such a person ever existed. This article was created by a WP:SPA to support another hoax article, Samir-André Lajoié, purportedly the subject's son. Pburka (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a hoax. Absolutely nothing found to support the existence of this person, which seems more than a tad unlikey given the assertions in the article. (Although, I was amused by the number of WP mirrors and spammy websites that had generated empty pages offering free MP3 downloads because the article has been around for so long) One glaringly obvious flaw in the article is the claim that he was signed by Rotana Records in 1978, despite the fact that Rotana Records was not founded until 1987. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above, unable to find sources to verify this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 23:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete as per Flowerpotman. Clearly a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

previously speedily deleted, this recreation still reads like a promotional brochure. Only TravelWeekly source and AOL (Gadling) appear reliable. Citizenwire.com is self-published and onetravel.com is a primary source. TravelWeekly mentions the company only in passing and the ranking itself is of questionable value. AOL source is interesting but appears to be largely based on a company press release. Google News searches on the company name bring up little else. Not seeing how this might meet WP:CORP. RadioFan (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete reads like an advertisement and is of questionable notability. Eeekster (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RadioFan

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 27 April 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 19:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen King in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete. WP:POPCULTURE: "Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject." "[P]assing mentions in books, television or film dialogue [...] should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources." "In determining whether a reference is notable enough for inclusion, one helpful test can be to look at whether a person who is familiar with the topic only through the reference in question has the potential to learn something meaningful about the topic from that work alone." Nominated for deletion in 2008, so it's had three years to have had a chance to be cleaned up, but looking at the original nominator's comment then, it looks like it's had virtually NO work done on it since then and exhibits the same problems as 2008, except with three years' additional data added. As the original nominator said, "A list of everytime he is mentioned isn't notable." As the closing admin noted, "I suggest that people arguing for retention work on fixing it up; articles can only persist under the 'keep and cleanup' argument once or twice." No one worked on fixing it up, and I don't think "keep and cleanup" can be a valid defense after the "keep" people had three-plus years to do exactly that ... and didn't. WCityMike 12:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like miscellany and trivia and not much else. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Stephen King. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- unsourced, excessive trivia of the "I saw it here!!!" variety. Reyk _YO! 06:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fancruft, unsourced trivia. --Reference Desker (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Merge it with Stephen Kings page, it is important to have on his page, but not as a stand alone page. Who Am I Why Am I Here? (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a list of every time someone says "Stephen King" is not an encyclopedia article. A list of every time a Stephen King work is mentioned or parodied in another work is not an encyclopedia article. A list of everything that looks like it might be a reference to something Stephen King wrote or said or did is not an encyclopedia article. Harley Hudson (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What we have here is a long unsourced list of trivia. None of it is actually all that notable, most are just passing mentions or original research without an RS to draw the connection for us. Merger into Stephen King would be highly UNDUE in that article. Prefer keep over merge due to that, but I don't think this article as a topic meets WP:GNG in independent sources. Courcelles 00:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Mittal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Re-nominating based on prior no-consensus close. Biography of a run of the mill software consultant. No indications of any significant contributions to the field. References indicate that he spoke at a few conferences, nothing more. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG by a long way.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 14:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, borderline speedy A7. Pburka (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 27 April 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Euthanasia Coaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable concept for a fairground ride that kills you... there are references to it, but with the possible exception of the Wired piece, they're unreliable. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Catfish Jim, thanks for your concern. I created this article, as I think it satisfies the notability criteria: multiple sources cover the concept (or, actually, the designer made it into a scale-model that is on display): they are independent from the subject, except for the link to his own blog. This source is, IMHO, permittable per WP:PRIMARY: the data is not interpreted from his blog by myself, secondary sources are used and cited. If I understand the WP:SOURCES guidelines correctly, when secondary/tertiary sources are used to establish notability, primary sources can be used to fill in details. I would be glad to incorporate changes if you can point me a mistake in this.

Regarding notability of the sources, I would say the Wired-article definitely qualifies as reliable and the io9 source is linked to from the New York Times website. There are several more websites that have written about the concept: 1, 2, 3 (French). On a final note, and maybe I am misreading things here, implying the article is less worthy of inclusion because it is a 'fairground ride' might be a bit weird - if it is written about by several reliable sources, then it would seem it is interesting to people although fairly trivial, I admit. But then again, excuse me if I am misreading here. It would be nice if we could get a consensus on improving the article with a picture/drawing and more sources instead of deleting it - I think it would be a waste. Looking forward to hearing from you and thanks again for your critical thought. Kind regards, Pim Rijkee (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply No, nothing to do with fairground rides being unworthy. My contention is that this 'concept' is simply not notable enough for inclusion. Whether the Wired news piece is a reliable source or not, it amounts to trivial coverage. A couple of sentences about one exhibit in a general reviews of an art exhibition does not amount to signifcant coverage as required by WP:SIGCOV. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. --Reference Desker (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to have some value as fantasy art. Some might think it in abhorrent or in bad taste but that could go for a lot of art. It is not aimed at any specific group and does not seem to have any moral implications in itself (Neither is it in anyone's wildest imagination likely to be constructed for either of the 'proposed' purposes). Additionally, it is of interest from a physiological point of view. If the physics have been accurately calculated it gives a graphic idea of death by anoxia which is not in itself at all painful or unpleasant, although the g-force factors make the idea rather less than attractive as they could be unpleasant. It seems to have that surrealist approach that makes us think about things in new ways - a valid intention in terms of art. It is probably not meant seriously in any practical way, just as a concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boleskine (talk • contribs) 13:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The question is not whether the piece has 'value' as an artwork, but rather whether it is notable. WP:GNG summarises the general guidelines for notablity. There must be multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Currently, I'm not seeing evidence of this cited in the article. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I agree with Catfish Jim on our criteria: we should look at the notability guideline, not at whether it is "valuable". But I think that the content on the design in most of the sources quoted in the article amounts to more than a 'trivial mention' (WP:GNG). It is hard to judge on what exactly qualifies as 'significant', but if the information in the sources can make an article of the current length, and without original research used to extract data (WP:GNG), I do think the coverage is significant. Edit Metro.co.uk published an article on the Coaster today, I just added it to the article.

• Comment That's more like it... It'd be nice if the 'art' aspect was emphasised in the article, and there were references from art journals, but I suspect this is enough to survive the AFD. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 17:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Coverage easily adequate for this Modest Proposal. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It looks to me like it has received some coverage other than being listed as a part of an exhibition itself, so while there's not a ton of sources I think there's enough to keep this. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noeleen Hale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Orphan article about a living person noted for only this one event. The event fails WP:EVENT and the person fails WP:BIO1E.

Delete not notable, as per WP:BLP1E Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. A single event, and participant was the "human interest" element in the story, arguably not even the main subject of the story. --HighKing (talk)

Delete: Not notable per BLP1E. Scolaire (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BLP1E is just a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. She's notable enough to have had a book written about her. LemonMonday Talk 11:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly LM, why is it that you won't/can't perform even the basic research? For accuracy, she has not had a book written about her. The article does mention a book, but be aware that the the publisher is "Books LLC" and they are known for publishing books based on Wikipedia articles and categories - certainly the case here too. Check out the category of "Female Police Officers" on Wikipedia and compare to the book.... --HighKing (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless. The only reason you and Bjmullan are here is because the text of the arcticle includes British Isles. And I notice in the edit history of the article you've had a previous stab at this back in 2008, no doubt for the same reason. LemonMonday Talk 12:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we're agreed that the book isn't a reliable source. --HighKing (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete classic example of BLP1E. Do we have an article about the riot in question? Material can go there,. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That could be done. If all else fails I'll merge relevant sections of this article into Ardoyne if that's thought to be reasonable. LemonMonday Talk 13:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's not even an article on the riot and there's nothing to merge since there's zero indication that any of this is notable. --HighKing (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ardoyne has had a number of riots, even I've heard of the place. I'll source some detail later and see if there is anything about this woman that works. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ardoyne, but mind the opportunity isn't taken to sneak in a British Isles deletion. LevenBoy (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perish the thought! Noeleen's bravery would have been for nothing if the words "British Isles" were not in the merged article. Scolaire (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources, at least so far as I can read, define the geographical scope of the coverage. So that isn't necessarily an issue. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have one source that says "international attention" --Errant ^(chat!) 21:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting a new article based on riots in Ardoyne? --HighKing (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't see why this woman is notable. Just one of many police officers doing her job in difficult circumstances. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is not asserted, let alone shown. Edward321 (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Jeggo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable young footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. PROD was removed by an IP with no reason given. GiantSnowman 09:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• edit: Delete/Userfy per not yet having made an appearance Speedy Keep - Appears in fully professional A-League per WP:NFOOTBALL Jebus989^✰ 09:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• But he hasn't actually played a game, therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per WP:CRYSTAL, we cannot pre-empt notability before it has been established. He might not ever play a game, even if currently signed. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This footballer never played a game before, he fails the Sports notability guideline, thus he is not notable enough to have an article within Wikipedia. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 15:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, notable once he plays an A-League game, but not before. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• DeleteFails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG, restore the page by all means if he makes his sebior debut, but im afraid rules are rules.LiamTaylor 19:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, no, guidelines are just guidelines.The-Pope (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but find an admin ready to undelete iff he makes his debut in a few months time in the next season.The-Pope (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Good (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable young footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. PROD was removed by an IP with no reason given. GiantSnowman 09:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• edit: Delete/Userfy per not yet having made an appearance Speedy Keep — Appears in fully professional A-League per WP:NFOOTBALL Jebus989^✰ 09:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• But he hasn't actually played a game, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per WP:CRYSTAL, we cannot pre-empt notability before it has been established. He might not ever play a game, even if currently signed.Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He fails his own Notability guideline, he never played a game before, thus he is not notable. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 15:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:FOOTYN. Recreate if and when he ever makes his debut for Melbourne Heart. --Jimbo^[online] 13:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, He has signed a senior contract and is therefore a professional sportsman. --Simione001^[online] 15:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simione001 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • He has not played a professional match though, and theoretically may never, therefore he doesn't meet the requirement -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:51, 29 April 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Both inline and ice hockey are extremely minor amateur sports in Australia, so making a national team is not automatically notable. Article appears to be an autobiography as well, judging by the article creator's first edit summary. The-Pope (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not sure I agree with this: Both inline and ice hockey are extremely minor amateur sports in Australia, so making a national team is not automatically notable. No opinion as to inclusion-worthiness. Carrite (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have any evidence of any significant coverage of either sport, let alone this person, in independent (ie not the organising associations) reliable sources? Ice hockey may have a slightly higher profile, but both are rarely, if ever, covered in major newspapers or on TV. Like always, if anyone can find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then I'll withdraw the nomination, but I don't think any WP:NSPORT style auto-inclusion should occur here. The-Pope (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If he played on the national inline team I have to go with keep here. -DJSasso (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there a reference to the national team play? I checked both ice and inline rosters for australia at IIHF.com and didn't see him dating back to 2008. TerminalPreppie (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I dont think he played in the IIHF inline championships but I think i remember seeing him listed on the Skate Australia (one of Australia's two inline sanctioning bodies) website which would mean he is more likely to have played at a FIRS Inline Hockey World Championships, but dont quote me. Salavat (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok here we go, he is listed on the Australian Team Roster for the 2010 FIRS Men's Inline Hockey World Championships. Salavat (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Sources provided do not provide significant coverage of this semi-professional hockey player. A search for other sources doesn't come up with much, therefore fails WP:N, but it has been shown that he played at the 2010 FIRS Men's Inline Hockey World Championships, so he passes WP:NHOCKEY. Auseplot (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So, to mix my sporting metaphors, and maybe under-recognize the importance of the sport, but are we leaning towards keeping an WP:AUTOBIO (strike 1) with only trivial/not significant coverage (strike 2) in non-independent sources (strike 3) because he played in a tournament, which also has no independent coverage (strike 4)?The-Pope (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Has never represented Australia in ice hockey and, as far as I can tell, WP:NHOCKEY only applies to ice hockey, not inline hockey. With that aside, the only thing to consider the WP:GNG, which Adams fails spectacularly. He has no significant coverage in any sources, let alone independent ones. Jenks24 (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Playing on the national team for inline hockey passes the more general WP:NSPORTS which is what they probably meant above. -DJSasso (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally, I don't think they were referring to the more general NSPORTS, but even assuming that they were, I still don't think he passes NSPORTS. The only other applicable section would be "major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level". The only tournament that it's verified he played in is the 2010 FIRS Men's Inline Hockey World Championships, which, although an "international amateur" competition, is not, in my opinion, "major" as there are no significant independent sources on it either in the Wikipedia article or that I can find. I'm afraid my delete !vote must stand. Jenks24 (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Major just refers to the fact that it is the highest possible championship for their sport. -DJSasso (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not my reading of it. By your premise, I could create a sport, get some people I know from another country, have a "world championship" (which would make it the highest possible championship for that sport), then put this online at myofficialmadeupsport.com and be notable by Wikipedia's standards, even though neither myself nor the tournament is covered in independent sources. Jenks24 (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be a completely seperate issue because it would violate the "Wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day." principle. -DJSasso (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG - he crops up in a few team lists exclusively on the team website. GHIT searching is compromised by his relatively common name and the existence of a much more (formerly) notable rugby league team also called the "Sydney Bears". How about the requirements in WP:NSPORTS? "International"? Nope, this is an Australian league. What about "professional"? As in, the players earn their livelihood from their sport? Not a chance, in a league with approximately zero advertising. Basing the entire article on a single self-published player profile that lists his hometown as "Adelaide, NSW" is drawing a very very long bow.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He has participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. (quote from WP:NSPORTS. The International Roller Sports Federation is the highest organizing body for inline hockey (and not the IIHF) as recognized by such groups as the IOC and the Pan American Games Council, and it is FIRS that governs the game at major multi-sport events. This is not a case of making up a sport and holding a championship; this is a sport that has a worldwide governing body recognized by the IOC and is played at major international multi-sport events (such as the World Games). I am concerned about the basically total lack of sourcing, but I lean very, very weak keep, based on policy alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravendrop (talk • contribs)
• Delete WP:NSPORTS (as specified in its very first sentence) is there only to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet WP:GNG. In other words, GNG is king, and there's no indication Adams meets GNG. Sideways713 (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment In answer to the last two comments, I have frequently referred to what I consider the "spirit" of WP:NSPORTS to be - and I believe that is "competing at what level of each sport is likely to have coverage exist somewhere, maybe outside the googleable region, that meets WP:GNG." Most Olympians, most likely, have an article on them, somewhere, sometime. Most competitors in the main professional (or their amateur precursors) football/basketball/cricket/baseball leagues in most places around the world, would probably have an article about them. Ice hockey players in major competitions too, also easily fit in this category. Where it possibly falls down is when a player represents a minor country in a minor sport - and see this story about the status of the sport. It isn't as clear cut as American rugby league players or Egpytian cricketers, but he may meet the technical wording of the guideline, but he doesn't meet the spirit. There is virtually no chance of anyone finding any significant coverage of him in any independent reliable sources. And it is only a guideline. The-Pope (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 08:34, 23 April 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 Already redirected by User:Placidsux923 to Bell Road (Phoenix Metro), which is itself currently up for proposed deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Lloyd Wright Boulevard (Scottsdale, Arizona) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No assertion that the street is even notable. This was tagged with a PROD with the concern: "Junction lists don't need and shouldn't have separate articles in general, and in this case the main article for the road doesn't even exist." to which I agreed. The article was moved from Junction List for Frank Lloyd Wright Boulevard (Scottsdale, Arizona) to this title. This article was created to hold content not placed in Bell Road (Phoenix Metro), itself a roadway with questionable notability, without any additional information added here. A search of Google News finds plenty of mentions of accidents, buildings or building projects along the road, but nothing substantial about the road itself. Imzadi 1979 → 07:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Aside from Taliesin West being located on the road, there doesn't seem to be anything notable about it, and one notable building doesn't make the whole road notable. The only coverage of it seems to be addresses, the occasional construction project, and a city streetscape guideline that isn't nearly enough to make it notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 08:35, 23 April 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 carbon star. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon giant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

So in February, I redirected this to Carbon star but someone thought that was incorrect and it's not the same thing. The whole deal is still w/o any sources, and apparently there aren't any to be found. We need people who know about the topic, just to be sure. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: It was me who reverted the redirect, on the grounds that the article did appear to be talking about a kind of planet rather than a star, and I could find no relevant GHits - though I did not check GScholar. But I now think that was wrong and it should be redirected to Carbon star after all. I can find no GHits at all referring to a "carbon giant" planet, but a handful of GScholar hits referring to stars. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to carbon star. Literature is obvious and clear. A carbon giant is a carbon star. Just look at Google scholar. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to carbon star. A NASA ADS search for the term "carbon giant" [24] brings up articles that use this term to refer to carbon-rich giant stars. Not sure it is worth saving the content of the article, it is unreferenced and it would perhaps be better to redo it in the carbon planet article based on Kuchner and Seager (2005) [25]. Icalanise (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • it might be better to rename carbon planet to carbide planet, to allow carbon planet to cover types other than terrestrial, as overview of all carbon-rich planets, with the terrestrial type at "carbide planet". 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd disagree with the split to "carbide planet". Firstly, the term "carbide planet" does not appear to be actually used in the literature (NASA ADS search returns no results for this term), and a Google search seems to reveal mostly mirrors of the Wikipedia article that leads me to suspect "carbide planet" is a term made up by the Wikipedia editor. Secondly there isn't really enough material in the article to justify a split at the current time. Icalanise (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to carbon star, because according to [Google Scholar] it seems to mean a star and not a planet. Tideflat (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to carbon star as above, especially the original un-redirecter. --Bejnar (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to carbon star. As an astronomer, the first thing that comes to mind with the phrase 'carbon giant' is a carbon star with luminosity class III. The description in the article as it stands is nonsensical anyway - such a planet would be referred to as a 'carbon-rich planet', or a 'carbon-rich gas giant' if it was a gas giant. Modest Genius ^talk 19:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per the above. I don't believe that the combination of "carbon" and "giant" is a recognized category for a planet (although it is for the stellar type). There is the example of WASP-12b, but there it is described by NASA as a "carbon-rich world". Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The majority of those arguing to delete indicate that the individuals probably are notable enough for their own articles, but the family as a whole should not have an article. That is a perfectly valid argument for splitting and/or renaming this article, but it is not a valid argument to delete it. We don't delete articles on admittedly notable subjects just because they are under the wrong name or are poorly organized. Discussion on how to deal with this situation can and should continue on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meek family of York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable family; de-prodded with no explanation beyond "because I think that this article should not be deleted ". PamD (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a bit rich to complain about the de-PRODding rationale when the PROD rationale itself was "just not notable" and there wasn't even an edit summary provided indicating that deletion had been proposed. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the PROD rationale says what it needs to; you've got a point on edit summary - I did several things in one edit and possibly wrote the summary planning just to tag as {{notable}} then decided to PROD. If it had been a drive-by PROD by Twinkle you'd have had an edit summary: I stub-sorted it, added {{unref}}, gave it geog context and, in the next step, moved it to the right title. Sorry I forgot to mention the PROD in edit summary - no intention to hide it. PamD (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obviously notable per WP:POLITICIAN: "mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion". This family was six times Lord Mayor of York, Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The family was not Lord Mayor. Members of the family were. The individuals may pass WP:POLITICIAN, this doesn't.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic here is the notable members of the family who have the same name. We might rename to a title such as "James Meek (Lord Mayor of York)" to make its scope clearer but this would not be achieved by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If there's not enough known information on them beyond "X was the Lord Mayor of York in year Y and they were the son of Z" to make an actual individual article worthwhile, then perhaps this info could be much more fitting in the article on the Lord Mayor of York, which could use a list of the actual mayors and is in much need of expansion. This would be much more logical rather than having an article on a non-notable subject (this group as a family) to cover it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree. This does meet with WP:Politician Dream Focus 11:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Colonel Warden, as they were "mayors of cities of at least regional importance". --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as notability is not inherited. The custom in Wikipedia is to have individual articles about notable people, which may mention relatives, but Wikipedia os not a geneology site and the Meek family did not hold an hereditary title. There appear to be quite a few Meeks in York in the nineteenth century and by no means all are notable. As for the James Meeks who were Lords Mayor, I happen to have a list of Lords Mayor from 1835 to 1881, and that gives Sir James Meek serving in 1837, 1849 and 1851, and James Meek junior in 1856, 1866 and 1867. However, I cannot rule out the possibility that the son was in fact knighted as the same source lists only Alderman Sir James Meek as serving on the council in 1881, and the point is relevant only to establish that there were probably only two or three notable Meeks out of what may have been quite a number of members of the family (even if all the Meeks living in York were in fact related). Wikipedia has lumbered itself with a very unfortunate policy in relation to mayoralties. The office of Lord Mayor of York is held for a year and is almost entirely ceremonial. Whilst it is second in precedence only to the Lord Mayor of London (mayor of London is something quite different) it is hardly of great notability in itself. I'm not sure how many local residents could name the current holder of the office despite the fact that she is a relatively well known local councillor who has served for many years. I doubt that their contemporaries would say either that the James Meeks were notable for having been Lord Mayor, but that the notability came first. It remains the case that there are several positions, especially Leader of the Council, that are more notable than Lord Mayor. --AJHingston (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Having notable people does not make a family notable as a whole. WP:POLITICIAN is not for saying "lots of notable politicians have been in this group, so the group is notable," it's for establishing the notability of the individuals. Notability is not inherited.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The point of the article is to document these three notables who all share the same name - James Meek. Note that the James Meek article is about yet another person of this name who is unrelated and refers readers interested in the James Meeks of York to this article. Must we create separate articles for each and every one of these related individuals? How is this sensible and how does deletion help us in this? Colonel Warden (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, we don't. But we shouldn't be making an article about a non-notable family either. This info could be limited to the article on the position.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Yaksar. If List of Lord Mayors of York existed (List of Lord Mayors of London does), then this issue could be solved simply by placing the following hat on James Meek:
  For James Meek, Lord Mayor of York, see List of Lord Mayors of York.
  
  If and when we have sufficient information on any of the individual James Meek who were Lord Mayor of York, we can create an article on him. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: if this article was on the topic of 'James Meek the father', or his son Sir James Meek, it would pass WP:POLITICIAN as a biography of a Lord Mayor of York. This is not either of those articles. It is an article on an otherwise-obscure family, to which notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from its two notable members. It is not uncommon for prominent people to be the descendants of other prominent people (Thomas Pitt, Pitt the Elder and Pitt the Younger would be an obvious example), but it would be duplicative, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and against current practice to have an article on a family unless that family contains so many prominent members that an article is necessary to keep track of the relationships (the Darwin–Wedgwood family and related Keynes family being obvious examples). The necessity of making such a WP:NOTINHERITED-distinction should be obvious from the sheer number of conceivable groupings that might yield a couple or so notable members, to which we would be opening the floodgates to. Let us write on the subject of what, and who, is notable -- not on the subject of their family trees or other otherwise-obscure groupings to which they might belong to. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems to me that the objection to this article is that it covers three men with the same name, in a family, but if there were separate articles about each man, with reliable sources, then each would be notable by WP:POLITICIAN as a biography of a Lord Mayor of York, as Hrafn says above. If so, then the result of this AfD should be to split the article two or three or perhaps even more ways, each for a particular Lord Mayor of York. It could perhaps be even more ways, of there were someone not with the first name James, yet Lord Mayor of York. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And if there is no more information available than is in this article (although it would need to be sourced before any merge could be considered) maybe it could be included in a much needed list on the page for the position.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are a problem with this article. I have found a list of Lord Mayors of York on the Mansion House website but unfortunately it does not give titles, so it throws no light on which of them was knighted, but it does otherwise match the information in the 1881 directory. It also confirms another inconsistency with the article because George Hudson (referred to in the article) served as Lord Mayor in 1838, 1839 and 1847, and a James Meek is recorded five times after that, not three as stated. To sort out the family history would require original research, and that is, I'm afraid, a problem with the article as a whole. One reason why it is not a good idea for Wikipedia to admit genealogies unless the information is openly published in reputable sources is that it is so difficult to verify, and as I have indicated I can only establish for certain that there were two James Meeks who are reputable in Wikipedia terms and my information disagrees with the article on which of them was knighted. --AJHingston (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Individual members of the family may be notable and deserve their own articles, but the family itself isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some members of the family probably are notable and so deserve individual articles but the family is not. Possibly, once all qualifying individuals have been added, they could be categorised as 'Meek family of York'. S a g a C i t y (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is quite possible for a family to be notable without holding a hereditary title, for example the Kennedy family, the Forbes family, the Bach family, or the Freud family. Edward321 (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but those families had/have more members that are more prominent than the Meeks. So does the Pitt family I allude to above, but it doesn't have an article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:40, 30 April 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 - no context, WP:SNOW, etc. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to older minecraft versions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not a guidebook. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:13, 23 April 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. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Kennedy (Republic of Texas politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No particular assertion of notability made, sourcing is very limited. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources discussing his role in the Regulator-Moderator War in the Republic of Texas, which seems to be the main claim of notability. I will change my mind if anyone can dig up something substantive. Cullen328 (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is not a lot of information on the subject all together. Sourcing is sketchy in locations. If you're going to delete this page you need to delete the one on the R-M War. Also the article was also previously slated for deletion and was determined to be notable enough to keep. ALSO the source is a historical journal from Northeast Texas discussing the event and his place in it. See B. B. Paddock, History and Biographical Record of North and West Texas (Chicago: Lewis Publishing Co., 1906), Vol. II, pp. 493-494.Theseus1776 (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous deletion nomination was a speedy nomination on the grounds that no notability was asserted. The decline didn't mean that it was notable enough to keep, just that it wasn't non-notable enough to delete without a full discussion. And there's certainly enough sourcing out there to maintain an article on the Regulator-Moderator War, should someone want to go digging.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP: The cite is still from a historical journal from the region where the event occurred, less than 50 years from that time. The references are sketchy and the historical record is thin, regardless of what you claim. This article should be kept as I have seen dozens of articles regarding the Republic of Texas with fewer cites, etc. Also see this reference to Kennedy as a "famous Freemason" listed with Davy Crokett, etc. http://borderlodge.org/site/about-freemasonry/famous-masons/ Theseus1776 (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "This list of famous Texas Masons is taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Lodge_of_Texas#Famous_Texas_Freemasons.".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • He was a member of that lodge and is clearly of note. I didn't see their sourcing. You need to delete most of the articles on Wikipedia with your standards. Kennedy is mentioned in 2 historical records, one of which, as I have stated, IS reliable, IS from the region and time period in question, and IS clearly referenced in regards to his involvement in the R-M War. I don't see how this does not meet your notability guidelines; and yes, I have read the guidelines and believe that it suffices. Theseus1776 (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • See also: http://www.txgenes.com/TXHarrison/Civic/1857GrandLodge22.htm for list of Marshall Lodge 22's membership. #22 is a Republic of Texas lodge, which means it was chartered during the republican period.Theseus1776 (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't see what this individual is notable for. He doesn't appear to be a notable politician, or notable cavalry captain, or notable freemason. What makes him notable? I'll change my opinion if there is a worthwhile reference that explains why he is notable. A claim that he is a famous freemason doesn't quite hit the spot.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 01:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you haven't read the whole thread. The Regulator-Moderator War was the largest blood feud in American history and a major event in the history of the Republic of Texas. John J. Kennedy was the sheriff of the county while the war was raging and according to the cited, verified, and reliable citation helped end the conflict. 72.64.96.135 (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And since I know that someone will claim that the source is not reliable I have included a link to the actual printed text, which is out of print: http://historical.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=6046&Lot_No=42148 The citation is from a web forum that quotes the text verbatim. To verify the reliability of the text and the explicit reference to John J Kennedy in it, which is a notable mention, one just needs to search for the name of B.B. Paddock who authored the text. He was a 4 term mayor of Ft. Worth and was an expert on the region as any other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.96.135 (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP: This article has been shown to have merit time and time again. I support keeping it and improving it rather than deleting it.Theseus1776 (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User !voted to keep already, above. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficient evidence for an historical figure. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I find it difficult to understand what would be gained by this deletion. There are vast waves of crap clogging the in-take valves at New Articles, that's where energy should be targeted, in my opinion. This is a stub about a historical figure. Only one footnote showing, so tag for more. Why delete? I just don't see it... Carrite (talk) 04:46, 23 April 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. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Bärtschi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable junior league hockey player, no senior international play, no professional play, no notable awards, no nothing. Fails WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG. Article created by SPA (who created one other such article also up for AfD). Prod deleted without comment by anon IP (who also deprodded the other such AfD).  Ravenswing  15:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Player does not meet the criteria of WP:NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Bartschi is one of the nominees for the WHL's Rookie of the Year Award, which received considerable support as meeting NHOCKEY during the Ryan Nugent-Hopkins AfD. The WHL announces their winners on May 4. Canada Hky (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is he nominated for the CHL ROY too? Or does that depend on if he gets the WHL ROY or not. Ravendrop 18:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah CHL ROY is chosen from the 3 winners of the leagues. -DJSasso (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]