Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 10

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AONN Records

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

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

Written almost entirely by a single user, full of language that is excessively complimentary, almost approaching the level of advertising copy. Very large claims are made that are completely unsupported by the sources. All external links are silly, including things like a facebook group with nine members.

The only easily found article about AONN in a mainstream source that is not simply a local CD review is the linked cnet article. The cnet article specifies that AONN, at least as a defense contractor as described in part of this article currently, simply does not exist whatsoever. The cnet article describes how AONN apparently successfully registered a .gov domain without justification; this may be notable enough to warrant inclusion on the wikipage for the .gov TLD, but does not establish notability for the organization.

AONN may exist in some form; several albums listed in the discography definitely do exist and list AONN Records. However, although I'm not entirely familiar with the music notability guidelines, I'm pretty confident that none of them have achieved any degree of notability. With the exception of a very small number of reviews of their releases in area papers, as far as I can tell there is no mention of AONN in any newspaper or anything else that would be classified as a reliable source.

AONN is not a registered company in Washington or Virginia, the two states mentioned on the page. (I ran AONN along with all of its listed synonyms through the state corporation and dba databases.) I know absence of registration may not mean much, but I would expect a media conglomerate as AONN is described as to be registered as a corporation. No major reliable source that I can find mentions AONN except in the context of the .gov registration or one or two cd reviews from 2000.

If AONN is deemed notable enough as a label to remain, I'll go through and delete all the confirmed incorrect info (like the defense contractor stuff,) but I've been unable to find solid evidence of it's notability even as a label.Kgorman-ucb

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not one single piece of the AONN Records material that sounds complimentary.

Next, how do you know that their company AONN is not still conducting government contracting business to this day? If you were to gamble and wager your career, I would estimate that you would lose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advanced research (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

Did you ever think for a moment that the cnet article might in and of itself be fundamentally flawed? Perhaps your issue with the truth of the matter is that the cnet article from the start, consisted of misleading information because someone who contributed to the cnet "story" did not do his/her homework. There is nothing "silly" about the AONN Records article on Wikipedia. Your actions and your language bespeak a very sophomoric attitude. The notability of AONN Records was already established by Wikipedia in that KansasCali appeared on AONN Records November 12 Projekt track #19 titled, "I Didn't Know." The CD is available worldwide. " KansasCali who are now the Alternative Rock group called the Rocturnals." KansasCali is a Alternative rock group.

"History Both members belong to the production team Da Bookeez, in which they, along with E.Borders, have produced songs both individually and collectively. KansasCali has been featured in Billboard's 2005 Digital Entertainment & Media Awards.

Discography 2007: TV One's "I Dont Want To Be A Star" Starring George Willborn (Theme Song) Kicking It Old Skool (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) Complicated 2006: My Book Haven (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) 2005: Hello World CRASH Mr. & Mrs. Smith International Soundtrack Adults Only 2004: Food For Thought The Valet, The Bar, The Booth 2003: Appeared on 5 Compilation Records 2002: Better Dayz God's Son 2001: Appeared on AONN Records November 12 Projekt track #19 titled, "I Didn't Know" References ^ Digital Entertainment Awards"

AONN released a CD worldwide consisting of notable artists who have already been deemed notable by Wikipedia, thus making AONN Records a notable entity. Your denial of these very simple facts will simply lead to AONN Records history being further justified, reinforced and re-added to Wikipedia by multiple sources from around the world if the AONN Records article is ever deleted. Furthermore, AONN Records was and has been a legal government contracting entity despite your best efforts and attempts to suggest otherwise. Your lack of knowledge regarding the true nature of AONN Records and the company's related activities appears to be typical and characteristic of various third parties in media and other sectors who turned out to be incorrect regarding their initial assessment of AONN Records. If you do the proper research, you will find that AONN Records was never debarred from the business of government contracting and has been conducting said activities even to this day. Your college group is obviously not privy to certain information that can be easily found on the Internet. You ought to check your facts, as you have not conducted thorough research at the university and scholarly level on the subject of AONN Records.

There are far too many articles on Wikipedia that have been erroneously marked for speedy deletion and the AONN Records article is a prime example. There is absolutely nothing false about this article. All the references and sources check out. Next, the article is not in any way, shape, or form, written like an advertisement. The article is purely fact based. For user Kgorman to use the expression "bull" and even go so far as to indicate that "most of the article" is "bull" demonstrates that he is completely misinformed. Again, all the sources and references for the article check out. The following is one element of proof that the article is very encyclopedic and not false in any way: For example, if you follow the link from the AONN Records article to "KansasCali" you will see that the music group did in fact appear on a bona fide CD that is clearly being distributed worldwide and that is titled, "The November 12 Projekt," spelled with a 'k' just as I pointed out. Therefore, it is obvious to anyone at that point, that AONN Records is a real company with factual business standing and with the capability of releasing physical and digital musical material worldwide since the year 2000, as one can see from their company's multiple CD releases over the past ten years. It was already determined by Wikipedia to keep the related article on KansasCali that had been marked for deletion as far back as 2007. Thus, if the KansasCali article was deemed to have been true, then we can easily see and deduce that KansasCali truly appeared on a CD by a company called AONN Records. AONN Records material can be found in Amazon's database as well as the databases of what I have found to be hundreds, if not thousands, of music retailers form around the world. So, (A) AONN Records is obviously a real entity (B) Major artists who have had music on Hollywood Soundtracks such as KansasCali having appeared on the CRASH movie soundtrack, have also appeared on AONN Records albums (C) AONN Records has been interviewed by FOXNews, apparently CNN and other media bureaus, so again, there are clearly legitimate references to a company that appears to be exactly what the article says it is.

For Kgorman to claim that "most of the AONN Records" article is "bull" is irresponsible on his part and illustrates the fact that he has not done his homework. AONN Records is clearly a real entity dating back at least 11 years regardless of Kgorman's lack of knowledge about the entity. Looking at Kgorman's profile, one can see that he is a member of a UC Berkeley group that purports to deal with issues of piracy. Despite Kgorman's group's stated intent to instill good in the world, he has apparently jumped the gun on this one, with regard to the AONN Records article that is clearly, factually, referenced and supported by crystal clear evidence of truth. In fact, not one iota of the AONN Records article is untrue. It is one hundred percent true. Kgorman is completely, entirely, one hundred percent incorrect and his initial thoughts on the matter are purely subjective, opinionated, baseless, without substantiation and entirely of his own mind. The bottom line is that he is wrong and the AONN Records article is absolutely scholarly, based on true facts, referenced, supported by real world empirical evidence and has even been mentioned on CNN and FOXNews, not to mention that we can all see that AONN company's products being available worldwide for over an entire decade, at least by checking the copyright information dating back to at least the year 2000--over ten years. Wikipedia is supposed to be about truth, not about the personal opinions of contributors who do not properly source their information and then make such statements that are highly opinionated such as the absurd statement made by Kgorman in which he wrote "the AONN article is mostly bull."

Conversely, the AONN Records article is not only completely, one hundred percent backed up by solid facts, but it is also very well written, not in any way written like an advertisement, and it gives only the facts. The article is unbiased, without conflict of interest, and the article does not embellish the AONN company. The article merely points out the AONN media groups obvious history. Again, it cannot be disputed that the AONN company and conglomerate have been mentioned by major media sources and major news networks. AONN Records is verified, evidently legitimate and has an ostensible history that makes sense to those of us who have conducted proper research on the topic. In conclusion, KansasCali's article was deemed true by Wiki after a similar dispute, it is very clear and quite obvious from Amazon and thousands of other Web sites that KansasCali does in fact appear on AONN records material, so not only is Kgorman's analysis wrong, but his analysis is completely wrong and not well researched at all. AONN Records appears to be a very real entity with a very complex history that turns out to be one hundred percent verifiable and apparently legitimate. The media company's somewhat controversial nature so many years ago in the minds of some reporters as can be seen from some of the articles in the search engines has no bearing on whether AONN Records and the media group are real entities. They are clearly real entities. If Wikipedia is about truth, then Kgorman's initial assessment was hasty, was/is very wrong and nowhere near the real truth. AONN Records clearly deserves a place in Wikipedia given the absolute fact that it is absolutely a real entity with over one hundred artists signed to the company, which is exactly what the packaging data indicates when one does his/her proper research at Amazon dot com and thousands of other legitimate retailers carrying legitimate product for over a decade from a legitimate company that has been in existence for at least a decade from what the real world evidence proves.

There is zero conflict of interest. Kgorman's analysis is meta-faulty. Bromanski has not addressed Kgorman's so-called "in-depth" analysis of AONN Records despite Bromanski's list of word frequency. I gave a proper rebuttal which annihilates Kgorman's ridiculous claim that the AONN Records article is mostly "bull." Bromanski simply sidestepped the larger issue of whether AONN is actual and deferred to a pointless word counter of which the latter has nothing in the universe of space-time to do with the reality that AONN is a genuine entity. There appears to be some collusion here in regard to Bromanski going out of his way in a bizarre attempt to lead one to believe that AONN is not an authentic company with a more than ten year history.

2625 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 3-158 EVERETT, WA 98201

Services Offered

AdvancedAnnualAssessmentBudgetClassifiedConsultingCounterterrorismDefenseDevelopmentInformationsecurity IntelligenceNationalsecurityResearchRevenueRiskScienceStudiesTechnologyThreat Business Information

In Business Since: 1995 Ownership: Minority Owned Business Sector: Government Contract, Commercial

In terms of your class discussion about the topic of AONN the company's related defense contracting activities, AONN Records seems to be and seems to have been conducting certain legitimate government contract related activities of which you and your classmates are unaware. Again, the notability of AONN was long ago established quite simply by the artists who appear on AONN Records materials as illustrated above. On the other hand, the pretentious attitudes of your peers and highly misinformed colleagues, demonstrates your lack of true knowledge of this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advanced research (talk • contribs) 14:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can not find any third party sources that cover this in detail. Skin deep is a trivial mention and can't work to N. vI can't find any g-news hits and all of the google hits are not RSes. The cited cnet article claim the company does not exist.

For the remainder of this discussion can we please all be civil and limit our replies to a reasonable length --Guerillero | My Talk 00:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No real notability, no real 3rd party refs, no article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.C (talk • contribs)

• Delete. Article has been cleaned up since creation and is styled appropriately, but I cannot find sufficient sources to show it has achieved any kind of recognition that suggests it meets our criteria as an encyclopedic subject. There is almost no sign of the world taking actual note of it in a significant way either as a media company (WP:N) or a controversy (WP:NOT#NEWS), or "enduring notability" (WP:NOT), nor any other criterion that suggests it is a significant media company for Wikipedia purposes. Lots of self-pub and promotion websites of a WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE nature (myspace, mp3.com etc), next to no hard recognition in terms of cites showing significant editorial coverage and focus within reliable independent sources. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

— Duplicate !vote: Advanced research (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.(left by Guerillero | My Talk 16:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

In terms of the above parties who are in favor of deletion, none of them has conducted proper research. Did you ever think for a moment that the cnet article might in and of itself be fundamentally flawed? The cnet article is not accurate and is actually quite misleading. AONN Records is a registered company and has been all along.

(A) AONN Records is obviously a real entity (B) Major artists who have had music on Hollywood Soundtracks such as KansasCali having appeared on the CRASH movie soundtrack, have also appeared on AONN Records albums (C) AONN Records has been interviewed by FOXNews, apparently CNN and other media bureaus, so again, there are clearly legitimate references to a company that appears to be exactly what the article says it is.

The notability of AONN Records was already established by Wikipedia in that KansasCali appeared on AONN Records November 12 Projekt track #19 titled, "I Didn't Know." The CD is available worldwide." KansasCali are now the Alternative Rock group called the Rocturnals and are linked to AONN Records on Wikipedia.

KansasCali has been featured in Billboard's 2005 Digital Entertainment & Media Awards.

It was already determined by Wikipedia that KansasCali meets Wikipedia's standards of notability through a similar dispute. Therefore, there should be no dispute regarding AONN Records. Aside from any controversy and confusion on part of third parties who are unaware of AONN Records history, AONN Records has more than established its notability with the association of KansasCali which was already deemed notable by way of a previous Wikipedia dispute.

It is asinine for anyone to try to make the claim that AONN Records is not notable based simply on the notion that certain third parties who are nonexperts are unable to find certain information about a company that is already deemed notable by way of its association with artists who were already deemed notable by Wikipedia standards back in 2007. There should have never been a dispute as to AONN Records notability.

See Wikipedia entry and notes for "KansasCali" and notice that KansasCali was signed by AONN Records for the November 12 Projekt, which was released worldwide with radio play for the single, "I Didn't Know." Furthermore, KansasCali has been on 2 major, Hollywood soundtracks, (1) CRASH (2) Mr. & Mrs. Smith

• Keep

— Duplicate !vote: Advanced research (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.(left by Guerillero | My Talk 16:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

User FT2 is just plain wrong. AONN Records material is sold on MSN by the Microsoft Network, Bank of America, Virgin Mobile, Virgin Records, SONY Records, SONY DADC, Interscope/Interscope Digital, Amazon, HMV Canada, Tower Records, Rhaphsody, and HUNDREDS of other companies in over 150 different countries.

AONN Records material is sold in 150 countries and carried by some of the largest networks in the United States, including the Microsoft Corporation as stated above. Furthermore, AONN Records is more than notable, as the media company's materials are sold and found on literally thousands of Web sites around the world:

http://www.answers.com/topic/aonn-records-presents-the-november-12-projekt-2001-album-by-washington-state-original-artists

Ease Your Pain Rap by Doug Crawford of AONN Records Canada ... Sep 4, 2010 ... The new Canadian Boy Band/Rap Group has arrived ... canadian rap music muchmusic tv factor television bbc mtv canada hip hop r&b toronto ... www.astamusictv.com/.../ease-your-pain-rap-by-doug-crawford-of-aonn-records-canada-executive-producer-robert-taylor/ - Cached ► Aonn Records Presents: The November 12 Projekt by Washington State ... Before We Retaliate [EXPLICIT] On: Aonn Records Presents: The November 12 Projekt By: 495, One Sir Grove Of Evt, Mr. Brocklie, Spank Muthafu*Kin' T ... music.napster.com/dolemite-music/.../aonn-records...12.../10748019 - Cached AONN Records Canada-U.S. - DJ Sets and Tracks - Free music on PLAY.FM Tracks: Introduction, Can't Fucc wit U, So Serious, Jeepers Creepers Sneakers, Don't Be No Fool, Why?, Smokers Only, Land of the Strange, Reality, ... www.play.fm/label/aonnrecordscanadaus - Cached Rap & Hip Hop CD Results for Aonn Records Label at Tower.com Find Aonn Records label Rap & Hip Hop music on CD when you shop at Tower Records and browse CD reviews, track listings, album cover art, song samples and ... www.tower.com/.../aonn-records&cat101=88&facet=1100&cat102=4520&format=6 - Cached Politech: FC: More on AONN.gov: Feds pull plug on "cyberwarfare ... Feb 5, 2003 ... ""AONN Records Presents: The November 12 Projekt." Artists were selected from among those who proved to have exceptional performance ... seclists.org/politech/2003/Feb/22 AONN Records Presents: The November 12 Projekt by Washington State ... Nov 12, 2010 ... Listen to AONN Records Presents: The November 12 Projekt by Washington State Original... FREE on Rhapsody.com. Rhapsody lets you explore ... www.rhapsody.com/.../aonn-records-presents-the-november-12-projekt - Cached AONN Records / The Orchard mp3s, AONN Records / The Orchard music ... Download AONN Records / The Orchard albums and specific songs. eMusic also has compilations such as greatest hits and rare classic albums. www.emusic.com/label/AONN-Records-The...MP3.../109411.html - Cached Shopzilla - Find low prices on Aonn Records Presents: The November ... Shop online for Aonn Records Presents: The NOvember 12 Projekt by Washington State Original Artists (CD - 03/06/2001 and compare prices. www.shopzilla.com/aonn-records-presents-the...12.../compare - Cached soundclick artist: aonnrecords - AONN Records was created and ... AONN Records was created and licensed in 1995 by a group of young, scientific prodigies and philosophers working in multimedia, military defense security ... www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=453233...id... - Cached Aonn Records Presents: The November 12 Projekt by Various Artists ... Mar 6, 2001 ... Preview and download songs from Aonn Records Presents: The November 12 Projekt by Various Artists on itunes. Buy Aonn Records Presents: The ... itunes.apple.com/gb/.../aonn-records.../id4589668 - United Kingdom -

AONN Records is more notable than most independent record/media companies that are listed in Wikipedia. There has been both controversy and positive media reports that collectively satisfy and meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. Again, the notion that AONN Records media company not being notable is ridiculous and quite absurd.

It was already determined by Wikipedia that KansasCali meets Wikipedia's standards of notability through a similar dispute. Therefore, there should be no dispute regarding AONN Records. Aside from any controversy and confusion on part of third parties who are unaware of AONN Records history, AONN Records has more than established its notability with the association of KansasCali which was already deemed notable by way of a previous Wikipedia dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advanced research (talk • contribs) 15:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. We establish notability based on coverage by independent outlets. Album sales via a distribution company have no relationship to notability. I am striking out your second !vote because you voted twice. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Already thought this was a promo article, and the overly-long attempts at defending the article only further convince me of that. —Lowellian (reply) 00:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is asinine for anyone to try to make the claim that AONN Records is not notable based simply on the notion that certain third parties who are nonexperts are unable to find certain information about a company that is already deemed notable by way of its association with artists who were already deemed notable by Wikipedia standards back in 2007. There should have never been a dispute as to AONN Records notability.

  See Wikipedia entry and notes for "KansasCali" and notice that KansasCali was signed by AONN Records for the November 12 Projekt, which was released worldwide with radio play for the single, "I Didn't Know." Furthermore, KansasCali has been on 2 major, Hollywood soundtracks, (1) CRASH (2) Mr. & Mrs. Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advanced research (talk • contribs) 05:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  — Duplicate !vote: Advanced research (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.(left by FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Users here are not "making a claim" it is non-notable. We are saying that no evidence in reliable sources that meets our standards for notability has been shown to us. We can't consider claims of evidence if we have not actually verified it ourselves (between us), and the evidence that has been shown so far is very weak.

1. A group "KansasCali" appeared on the label. Our policy is that notability is not inherited. The fact a group may be notable does not make the label signing it notable.
2. A CNET article on a .gov website with a one sentence mention that "some have suggested it is a spoof [by AONN media]" apparently due to the similarity of name. Nothing more, no evidence it gained wide coverage as a controversy, and does not show that AONN media itself has gained "significant coverage" (WP:N) or that this matter has "enduring notability" (WP:NOT#NEWS). Non-major news items are almost never within our criteria
3. A book (itself not notable on interracial America) with a chapter on Robert Lee Taylor III. AONN is mantioned in one sentence, and then only because he was its CEO. AONN does not get "significant coverage" in "independent reliable sources" here either.

AONN is a music (media) company. It releases and publicizes records round the world, and it signs artists, which is what media companies do. Doing these things (like publishing albums or signing bands etc) is not evidence of notability, it's just what music businesses do. "Significant coverage" is quite a demanding term, and excludes a lot of poor quality coverage. There is no evidence in this discussion showing it has achieved "significant coverage" as a music company, or alternatively that the AONN.GOV issue has obtained "significant coverage" as a controversy. Last, as I commented on the article's talk page, we are not doing investigative journalism here, or parading supposed "government secrets" to the world unless the secrets have themselves gained significant coverage in a way we can verify (by seeing enough examples of coverage to convince users here that it is so). If something or some company has not already gained "significant coverage" in sources we can verify, then we don't cover it either. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per other arguments regarding non-notability. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hey, there you have it. It makes perfect sense now as to why Wikipedia is not considered scholarly, is untrusted, is unreliable and is not allowed by most accredited universities in North America as an accurate source of information. The above arguments regarding non-notability of the media company I wrote about are preposterous.

It appears as if Wikipedia editors will believe any newspaper article they read from any source and that a vast majority of Wikipedian's have nothing to do but create their own comfortable versions of what they believe to be reality.

OK, so you have your consensus. One guy says AONN is non-notable. Another guy comes along as says that the question is not about non-notability. Another person says that he/she believes everything written in the cnet article even though it has been explained a thousand times that the cnet article was inaccurate from the very beginning. Then, someone else comes along and says that a media company that has material selling on thousands of Web sites around the world still does not meet notability. Then, someone else chimes in and says that AONN Records never existed, even though the truth is that the AONN media company has done more than most of the truly non-notable and so-called independent record companies that are already listed with Wikipedia and that have never been disputed.

So, there it is: AONN Records never really existed (according to Wikipedia), was not/is not a real media company (according to Wikipedia) and has no notability by Wikipedia standards because some girl in San Francisco does not know how to properly search government databases for business listings and/or government contract companies.

Alright, Wikipedia's own brand of logic has opined once again. Live in denial of facts and write off AONN Records in some false way for your audience. I will keep a backup copy of these transcripts so that when the AONN media company further emerges as a major force in the world of media and entertainment which is inevitable, the world will know and see how Wikipedia tried to disrespect the AONN conglomerate. Again, this is why Ph.D.s, professors, institutions of higher learning, degreed persons and other scholars for the most part, do not allow Wikipedia to be cited in scholarly papers because Wikipedia has a tendency to delete, edit and modify true history for its own collective agenda, which is to put a warped spin and false stamp on otherwise true history.

The world has your usernames. Have fun boys and girls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advanced research (talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a company is not sufficient to establish notability. AONN Records may well exist (I have no reason to doubt that, actually), but that doesn't mean it is a "notable" topic by Wikipedia's standards. Please review these guidelines to see why we do not believe it is notable.

As for why Wikipedia can't be cited in papers, that has nothing to do with reliability, it has to do with the fact that Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, is a tertiary source, and tertiary sources are rarely allowed in papers. You couldn't cite Encyclopedia Britannica any more than you could cite Wikipedia. Also, kindly refrain from attacking or insulting other editors. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as A7 18:52, 11 March 2011 by RHaworth (talk · contribs)(non-admin closure).  Chzz  ►  04:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Molander

Jeff Molander (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 reference. Notability in doubt. Looks self promotional. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article deleted --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:01, 11 March 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. WP:CSD#G4 JohnCD (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Toral

Jon Toral (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 is about a footballer who is yet to have made a first team appearance, let alone a fully professional one; thus failing the project's notability. Jared Preston (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I was unaware of the previous AfD discussion. It is possible that the article could be deleted under the CSD G4. Jared Preston (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jared Preston (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#G4. This article is not substantially different than the one that previously deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as above. GiantSnowman 15:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per consensus and per CSD G11. This isn't an article it's a brochure. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Horse Institute

Dark Horse Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I prodded and then redirected to the institute as a good compromise, in both cases reverted by author. Apparently non notable course/programme written by the course founder. Fails WP:GNG. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 22:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Program is new, notability may not be established yet but is a notable program. Is worthy of it's own page. Any suggestions for changes or other info you need so the page can be retained? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colorado125 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G11 - spam. No indication of notability - all I can find in a search to affirm notability is other promotional content. The course is also covered at Robin Crow and Dark Horse Recording Studio, two other articles which seem to be more advert than encyclopaedic reference. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as pure spam. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as spam - Whpq (talk) 20:30, 11 March 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) 01:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ptarmigan ACP

Ptarmigan ACP (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 independently notable film company, apparently a single production of little note. The single production Blooded (film)is also at AFD and users may want to consider them together and any possible mergers and redirect options. The article was prodded and it was removed without any explanation by an IP with a first edit. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of coverage shows failing of WP:CORP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Blooded (film) might be notable enough to keep, but the production company doesn't seem notable enough. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh Khurana

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

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

Questionable notability, minimal sourcing. An IP tried to nominate this. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:PROF criterion 5 with a named chair. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep, speedy close. Named chair at Harvard, multiple scholarly books from major university presses. Unarguably passes WP:PROF. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep per WP:PROF#C1 (many highly cited papers in Google scholar, three with over 100 cites) and #C5 (the named chair). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 13 March 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) 01:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Voith

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

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

Subject's career doesn't seem notable. Was/Is the commander of a notable unit, however, notability is not inherited. Received a low level military award. Could not find references for him. Seems to fail WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:SOLDIER. v/r - TP 21:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unsourced biography of an officer that doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER. - Ahunt (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: completely unreferenced BLP. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This mid-ranked officer doesn't seem likely to pass WP:BIO and the article is entirely unreferenced. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per AustralianRupert and NickD. Anotherclown (talk) 10:29, 12 March 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) 01:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryant Eslava

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

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

Unreferenced BLP. Fails WP:ARTIST LordVetinari (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Article only tries to establish that he's a professional photographer; it makes no real claim to notability, and there's no coverage.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 00:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What Mbinebri said. (As he's still only a teenager [or so we are told], this is hardly a surprise.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 15:19, 17 March 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. BigDom 14:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susannah Ticciati

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

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

Originally PRODded but contested by page creator. Cleaned up article and double-checked sources but subject still fails each criterion of WP:ACADEMIC LordVetinari (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am afraid that this otherwise notable academic may fall foul of the verifiability issue in Wikipedia:ACADEMIC#General_notes: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." I'll post a rescue tag in the belief that I am mistaken. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I tried rescuing. The edit history will show what I did but feel free to second-guess me if you disagree with something. I think I agree with your comment about verifiability but isn't mention on her college's own website sufficient for those citations where it's used? Correct me if I'm wrong. Nonetheless, I still think the subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, but perhaps she will in a few years time. BTW, note this edit summary. The source I refer to is KCL not Amazon. LordVetinari (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the precise opposite of what Bearian says above. There is no problem at all with verifiability of the subject's academic career, unless anyone wants to claim that King's College London is an unreliable source, but such verification shows that she comes nowhere near meeting the requirements of WP:PROF, being a lecturer (i.e. "assistant professor" in American English), and with a total of 12 citations to her work listed by Google Scholar. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: She has created a work that has been the subject of multiple independent reviews doi:10.1093/jts/flp042, doi:10.1353/sho.0.0200. Does this meet WP:AUTHOR criterion 3? The only reason it wouldn't is if we judge it not to be a "significant" work. But how do we judge significance, if not by the existence of multiple full-length reviews in independent reliable academic journals? Maybe a topic for Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) rather than here? Personally, I'm increasingly thinking that this specific criterion is in need of revision. --Qwfp (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Her work must be influential in her field. Google Book search shows many other religious books mentioning here and her work. She is also referenced in a lot of Google scholar results. WP:PROF item 1. I believe she meets. Read the explanation of "Notes to specific criteria:" and that seems to fit here rather well. Dream Focus 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The Google scholar search shows 59 results for her name, 32 if you add in the Bible book named "Job" and 25 if you filter out those that were written by her. [1] 45 results if you eliminate "Job" and just search for "Susannah Ticciati" -"S Ticciati"(this is the name she publishes articles by, so I removed those from the search). I doubt someone else has the same name as her, it certainly not a common one. Google books has 222 results for her name, all of them religious, and most not written by her but by those referencing her work. Dream Focus 21:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems to me that this falls under the general criterion whereby Dr Ticciati is more distinguished than the average lecturer. Theologynina 12 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theologynina (talk • contribs) who is the creator of the article . — Theologynina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment. Your account has made no other edits outside this article. It suggests this may just be a vanity page. It would help the skeptics (like myself) if you were to be able to describe exactly how/why Dr Ticciati is more distinguished than the average lecturer. Otherwise.. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. GS cites are 7, 3, 1, 1. Totally inadequate for WP:Prof#C1, even for a low cited area as systematic theology. Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as articulated by Xxanthippe above, there does not seem to be enough to pass the professor test quite yet. nancy 09:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing in gnews, you would expect someone being a well know author to get at least a passing mention. fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Xxanthippe and David Epstein. Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:PROF, and although she is the author of a work that has received multiple independent reviews in reputable academic journals, (see my Comment above), this does not appear to be a significant work as required to meet WP:AUTHOR: the journals in question are the specialist theology journals (Journal of Theological Studies and Shofar: An International Journal of Jewish Studies), there are no hits in GNews Archive indicating no reviews in non-academic journals or newspapers, and the few hits in GBooks are for specialist theology books. Qwfp (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. To add to the above, there are 5 publications listed in WoS, but 0 overall citations. Her book ("Job and the disruption...") is held by ~125 institutions according to WorldCat. Note that number of GS hits is irrelevant (as opposed to the citations of the hits, as xxan points out). It would appear that this case must be argued on WP:PROF#1 (as others are obvious non-starters), but the statistics do not support a conclusion of notability. Rather, they are extremely typical of a junior-level academic. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Susannah is amazing. End of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.92.184.159 (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — 159.92.184.159 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment. Do you have any substantive argument? This seems to be just personal opinion. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 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. Press releases are not sufficient to establish notability. J04n(talk page) 18:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basic4android

Basic4android (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Zero notability shown. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the main author for this entry. Basic4android is not just a software. It is a new programming language. I'm new to Wikipedia authoring and still learning. I've now added two references to the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erel2 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. A google news search turns up some press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears to be another BASIC interpreter compiler, except this one is more like Visual Basic. Does not establish real notability. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 16:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will not argue with you as you all appear to know everything and are much smarter than us the regular users. Some small notes. Basic4android is not an interpreter at all. It is a compiler. The language is similar to Visual Basic and Visual Basic .Net. Basic4android is the most powerful (complete) alternative for developing Android applications without using Eclipse / Java. It is still a very new product so you cannot find a lot of information about it. I don't understand why this topic is less important than many other (similar) topics like DarkBasic, FreeBasic, Liberty_BASIC, PureBasic and many others as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erel2 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the status of other articles is not really the point- this article fails to meet the general notability guidelines as it is. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If we "cannot find a lot of information about it", we probably can't have it in Wikipedia. The information here should be verifiable by reliable sources. News stories and the like (not press releases), are what is needed to show this product is in fact notable. (Incidentially, if you are one of the subject's developers, you have conflict of interest. You should not use Wikipedia for promoting your product. If your product becomes notable, others will likely create a page for it.) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 22:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a B4A user who came here to create a page about it, I have to argue in favour of the Wikipedia page being kept, not deleted. It is a very new language but already with a growing user base and has been mentioned on popular sites such as Dr Dobbs and Gizmo Crunch. It has equally as much validity as the other entries for Basic based languages such as those listed in the discussion above, of whom their wikipedia pages have their own websites as their reference source rather than independent sources despite their being longer established.

You argue that news stories not press releases make something worthy of inclusion however if you review any of the Basic languages already mentioned and that have Wikipedia pages you will see a notable lack of news reports on even the more established ones, and given its relative newness you can understand Basic4Android has less press than they currently do hence the lack of widespread external references.

You argue it has zero notability, I would argue that any new programming environment that simplifies programming for the worlds most successful mobile operating system is as worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia as any other such environment for any other platform.

Mistermentality (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Gizmo Crunch just reprinted a press release. And the Dr. Dobbs article is just a rehash of the press release. The article is primarily quotes and taken from the same press release as can be easily seen when comparing the two. -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 17 March 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. Consensus is that the notability criteria are not met.  Sandstein  06:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keven Veilleux

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

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or the WP:NHOCKEY guideline for ice hockey players. Onthegogo (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not an automatic case, and not notable enough otherwise for his own article. Mandsford 21:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have wrote the page because I've seen the French page fr:Keven Veilleux and I thought it would be OK, but you're right, it doesn't match the WP:NHOCKEY guideline. But so far he played 59 games and counting in the AHL [2], so he is not far away from the criteria of 100 games in the AHL. --Giskard (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 60 pro games total does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. He can easily be recreated next season if he surpasses the 100 game threshold. ccwaters (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject currently fails WP:NHOCKEY/ The player may have 61 games in the AHL currently, but will have to wait until at least sometime next season to meet the 100-game trigger for Criteria #3 of NHOCKEY. Can be recreated or restored if/when the player meets one of the qualifications of NHOCKEY. -Pparazorback (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I've voted to Keep in such cases when it was near-to-certain the player would achieve 100 games within the current season. It's never appropriate to do so when the player needs another season to do it ... the more so in dealing with a minor-leaguer whose entry-level contract is about to expire and who missed most of last season due to injuries. That such players - especially when their minor league scoring record is mediocre - often move on to other endeavors is axiomatic.  Ravenswing  11:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets notability as leader in a minor league per NYT 15 May 2009 [3] Top players (with playoff statistics and N.H.L. affiliations): RW Keven Veilleux (7 goals, 12 assists; Pittsburgh), Quebec Major Junior Hockey League March 2009 "offensive player of the month" per [4]. At worst he is on a cusp of notability - my suggestion is to Keep as a result. "Minor league record scoring is mediocre" is a bit of a reach as a claim. Collect (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What notability criterion do you claim this meets? Certainly none of the NHOCKEY criteria.  Ravenswing  14:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as a hoax (WP:CSD#G3). —BETTIA— ^talk 12:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Matthews

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

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

Elaborate hoax. Speedy deleted previously.

The article contains a link for the match report for the game in which he supposedly debuted for Rotherham (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2005/feb/27/match.sport9) The article does not mention him, and the lineups for the game (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/match/592044) have no Andy Matthews in them. No other reference sites such as playerhistory.com or transfermarkt.co.uk have him listed on Rotherham roster for that season either.

There is no record in any Russian media of a player by this name ever playing for FC Torpedo Moscow. Here is the official roster of FC Torpedo Moscow in 2010, he is not on it: http://www.pfl.ru/DESIGN.2001/SOKOLOV/1022_7.HTM. Here is the statistics for all the FC Torpedo Moscow players in 2010, he is not there: http://stats.sportbox.ru/club.php?sp=fb&club=1175066957&turnir=470. Google News Russia searches find nothing. Geregen2 (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt, as hoax. Edison (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 11 March 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. Snow keep (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 03:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Gold

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

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

removed prod so I brought here for a final judgement so it can be added to talk page if its keep or deleted if not..as apparently its been tagged for notability before. Tracer9999 (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - sourcing could use a bit of beefing up, but her notability is clear in two different fields. (Full disclosure: I have been published in Xenofilkia (as has my wife); and have worked professionally in the role-playing game industry.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article is about a non notable, non relevant, fandom writer and editor, her greatest contribution to the role-playing universe is Xenofilkia which redirects to the page itself, and the page is filled with red links, which contributes to the fact that the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - if the article gets deleted its content should be merged into Alarums and Excursions. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - sourcing can be improved and article can be further fleshed out, but she has won multiple awards and has long been active in a variety of fields: a writer of role playing games, publisher/editor of both long-running and notable gaming fanzine and filk fanzine. Shsilver (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The award I see is a single one for a game periodical. he/she was just the publisher and that does not necessarily make you notable because the newsletter may or may not be, the XENOFILKIA website looks like a personal website from 1992. and is filkontario the definitive filk source (whatever that is) I mean I got an award for a spelling bee once. that doesn't make me notable. seems to me that most people have no idea what filk even is much less filk ontario. Maybe the person has other more substantial awards based on them personally.. but in the article I am not seeing it. And thats part of the problem is that it is very poorly sourced. as it stand absent something I am missing, I dont see any reason to keep this. -Tracer9999 (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply - looks like a bad case of WP:IDONTKNOWIT. You admit to being clueless as to what filk music is, you seem unable to figure out that Lee is female, and you don't understand that a record stretching back decades, with two widely-known publications in disparate (albeit related) fields, is part of her notability, and you apparently didn't read the article about Alarums and Excursions, which has a solid article right here in Wikipedia! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the subject is both an award-winning editor and an inductee into the Filk Hall of Fame and thus easily crosses the notability threshold. The number of redlinks in an article is indicative of nothing for AfD purposes (AfD is not cleanup) and supportive of WP:BUILD. - Dravecky (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The award that the author received is also not notable, and the relevance of the author for Wikipedia is greatly reduced by the fact that most of his publications are within local and limited periodicals and they don't even have a great influence on the scenario of filk or game fanzine, per Google. And about Alarums and Excursions, the article is bad written, and not does not complain with an encyclopedia esque, however it is just a bad written article, not a solid article (that would be big and well written), it could be expanded by adding information of its contributors and writers. - Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 20:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The size of an article is not a signal of notability. Google hits are not a reliable indicator of notability either. - Dravecky (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Induction into the Filk Hall of Fame is one of the most notable awards in the field. Xenofilkia isn't "local"; filkers around the world subscribe to it, and it's also one of the most noted publications in the field. BunsenH (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the cited award. Not a field terribly well covered by RS, so this may look lighter than it actually is. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Most of the subject's coverage is likely to be in hard-to-find, print-only sources, which is not a strong signal of notability. However, as others have pointed out, there is still a substantial amount of coverage, and more important, the subject is identified as an influential figure in an academic text [5]. We do need to be careful about assessing notability based a amateur peer recognition, but the case for doing so is weakestst in fields like these, where "crosspollination" between the fan and professional communities is strongest. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • response - indeed, one of the distinguishing features of traditional science fiction fandom is that the distinction between "fan" and "pro" (the latter customarily mocked as "Dirty Old Pro") is considered trivial if not misleading. A Wilson Tucker or a Juanita Coulson is revered far more for their fannish activities than for the things which the mundane world might consider "real" work (although Wilson's Year of the Quiet Sun is a disturbingly powerful novel at a very professional level). --Orange Mike | Talk 03:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - per Orangemike and HW. ukexpat (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Book search[6] and Scholar search[7]. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute pyramid

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

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

Very obscure article. WP:INDISCRIMINATE Garydh (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obscure , maybe, but not covered by WP:INDISCRIMINATE that I can see. About a hundred hits on Google Books and the same number of Scholar make it clear that this is a notable concept in employment law. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to be a notable term in academic use. But either the author is not fully in command of the topic or they based it on a source which itself lacks appropriate academic rigour. Given the attention which seems to be given to the topic in US law schools I suspect the former. Not only is the article badly set out, there are a multitude of reason why grievances which might be litigated fail to get to court. Settlement is only one. It needs a rewrite by somebody who can identify the appropriate sources and explain it properly, but I don't think it is so far off the mark that it should just be deleted. The next attempt might be even worse (sigh). AJHingston (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Obscure" is not a strong reason for deletion. Collect (talk) 12:48, 15 March 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) 01:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Jamison

Leslie Jamison (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. First time author, does not meet the criteria established at WP:AUTHOR. Article states that work has been published in Best New American Voices 2008, A Public Space, and Black Warrior Review. However, these were merely brief promotional blips rather than critical commentary. Author's first novel is not supported by significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Book does not meet the criteria for notability found at WP:NBOOK. Cind.amuse 16:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Leslie Jamison is a starting writer, however, her first novel was nominated for Art Seidenbaum Award for First Fiction, see a mention in LA Times. I found reviews in the San Francisco Chronicle, Time Out New York, Yale Daily News. It seems that the book was reviewed by Vogue and Buffalo News [8]. In my opinion, Leslie Jamison meets our notability criteria for authors. Wikipedia is an up-to-date encyclopedia and it should cover also the recent notable events in the world of literature. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Vejvančický. Her book has received coverage in multiple reliable sources including a starred review in PW, and there have also been multiple features and interviews (see links at her website[9] that can be used to flesh out the biographical information.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & Redirect - After reading WP:NBOOK the book might meet the first cirteria, however, the author definitely does not meet WP:GNG. If there is sufficient information from secondary or tertiary reliable sources about the author to support her passing WP:BIO an article can always be spunout. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:00, 8 March 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, CTJF83 17:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As Arxiloxos accurately noted, the verifiably linked third-party coverage accessible through the author's website demonstrates that she satisfies the GNG's requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Hullaballoo.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:28, 11 March 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) 01:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thiago Santos (mixed martial arts)

Thiago Santos (mixed martial arts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This individual does not meet the notability requirement of WP:MMANOT or WP:GNG. The article has no sources except for his fight record. Article was deprodded by a new user who appeared to apply the "Google test". The problem is that WP alone has 10 football (soccer) players with that name. I also found a developer, a model, a designer, and a streetsweeper with that name. I'm sure there are many others, so care has to be taken when searching. Astudent0 (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He fails WP:MMANOT. Article also needs better references. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is basically an unsourced article about an MMA fighter who doesn't meet the notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keepi've heard of him. i say he is a keeper! 149.68.97.25 (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're a new user you might want to look at the AFD arguments to avoid. You've just used one of them. Astudent0 (talk) 17:16, 15 March 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. That is, delete without prejudice to recreation as an actual article about the Bible verse, rather than as a compilation of its translations.  Sandstein  06:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus 21:12

Exodus 21:12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This isn't bibleipedia CTJF83 17:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per nom. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 17:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nomination. And aside from the possible cut and paste job from Biblos, the view given of the text is not directly supported by the reference but appears to be an expression of one individual's religious position. The web offers us numerous opportunities to expound our beliefs, but Wikipedia is not one of them. AJHingston (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. I don't think that anyone holds copyright for the Bible, but it does indeed seem to be one individual's unsupported interpretation of the Bible — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiFlyChick (talk • contribs) 19:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Many English translations of the Bible are indeed copyrighted. Public domain editions can be translation into other languages and then copyrighted. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete: "ditto"AerobicFox (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - actually, several organizations do have copyrights on their own translations of the Bible. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Jusdafax 00:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per everyone here. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as copyvio of Biblos's compilation of translations of this bible verse (i.e. using the exact same group of translations in the same order). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Just to let everyone know that I removed all the copyrighted material on the page. I think the rest of the text meets G1. Minimac (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as copyvio and a really, really bad idea for an article. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Note that the copyvio concerns are overblown: All the texts are either public domain or allow brief excerpts for commentary, which this is. Once we get past these concerns, there's a real possibility that sufficient RS commentary exists to sustain an encyclopedia article on this one passage. Failing that, it can be Redirected in lieu of deletion. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this one more notable than any other? CTJF83 20:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, most individual Bible passages are notable. Consider: Google Scholar. Enough RS to write an encyclopedia article? Sure. Is the current state of the article even close? Nope. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 23:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 23:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:QUOTEFARM. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One of thousands of well-known passages from the Bible, which are not in themselves notable. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of quotations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but not for the reason the nominator cites (there are many articles based on Bible verses and chapters, so that's not the issue here). The reason this lot has to go is pretty simple, it's utter gibberish and mish mash in violation of WP:NOR; WP:NONSENSE; WP:MADEUP; and probably WP:HOAX as well. IZAK (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Strong Delete: ditto?" Sheesh. Copyvio concerns, probably mistaken in any case, are nullified by the removal of the offending material. After that, most delete votes here amount to WP:IDONTLIKE, methinks. Anarchangel (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First as to the "copyvio" claim - sourced quotes of short nature are not copyvios (noting I am looking at current article). The KJV is, in fact, under "perpetual copyright." Scratch that as a reason for deletion. Is the particular sentence "notable"? is the only criterion for deletion remaining. It is, however, often found in discussions about the death penalty - vide the NYT [10] 7 March 2001. Thus it is independantly notable onits own, and not just as one sentence in the entire Bible. Collect (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In and of itself, this verse is not notable. The information (although not the extensive list of translation) could easily be added to an article on the death penalty, or Exodus, or the Mishpatim as appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (without OR) or delete without prejudice to recreation. We don't cover "Bible-cruft" but most biblical verses probably do have good solid credible coverage - and secondary analysis - in multiple reliable sources. I don't have a strong view on covering all bible verses but a good case could be made that we should. (For instance at the risk of touching on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we have full articles on every episode of many TV series that got much less coverage in WP:RS than 2000 years of biblical analysis). Copyright doesn't seem a problem - most translations of Exodus are not copyright in the United States and even if one or two are, a single verse would not be breaching copyright (at worst fix it). The problem is that this is an appallingly poor stub (as others also said). It's a translation list with what appears to be a brief personal view. Either remove original research/unbalanced views and allow eventualism to expand the stub with analysis and balanced commentary, or delete without prejudice for now. Same net effect. As a valid article could surely be written, no real benefit to deleting. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Lean Delete: The copyright concerns are bogus, God is not going to sue us. (Don't get technical with me about translations, its one sentence anyway and we'll never get sued by anyone except maybe .... Satan.) By itself, this article isn't useful, as it has no discussion as to why this verse is notable. I do not agree that every bible verse is notable, though every book is.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but Satan has access to lots and lots and lots of lawyers! Carrite (talk) 06:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX characters. Will leave history intact in case anyone wants to merge any of the content. J04n(talk page) 18:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Crocodile Cook

Jim Crocodile Cook (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 This article about a character in a Japanese anime series, was created on 17 October 2006 yet no one has found reliable sources to verify the content. In addition, the article's subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline, namely the general Notability guideline, as there appears to be no specific guideline for fictional characters. Lastly, the content appears to contain interpretive original research based upon watching the anime series Yu-Gi-Oh! GX. --Bejnar (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Fix Nothing a little elbow grease couldn't take care of. Greg Comlish (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find any reliable sources, but I don't have access to reliable anime fan magazines. Four and a half years of editing did not produce results. Theoretical elbow grease does not save an article. --Bejnar (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or redirect to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX characters. This is the standard way of handling non-notable characters. Deletion should only be reserved for incidental characters; and even then, redirects are cheap. However, this character isn't incidental and does have a significant influence on the plot. —Farix (t | c) 00:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to the character list, no sources to prove independent notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 05:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect per Farix. – Allen4names 08:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 11 March 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. J04n(talk page) 18:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R. G. Battu

R. G. Battu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Establish the notability or delete rather than keeping such pages 0ukieu (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Article is about a professor of pharmacognosy (New word for me, too.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is customary for deletion nominators to explain the reasons why they don't consider subjects to be notable rather than bark out orders to other editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Comment' - First of all this is not a hot headed discussion. When a page remains as a not notable for a long time, there might be some problems with the page itself or the way how it is being administered. Whatever the case it may be, it is time to study the notability and keep/delete the page as appropriately. I have expressed my feelings on thia page. Someone might have written this page without realizing what could end up to such pages. Battu's work in his fielddoes not make him notable, nor his Ph.D from the US. He was a principal of a college in Karnataka. There are hundreds of colleges in Karnataka. Yet, that may not be enough to be considered for notability. Let us have a fresh look on this page and keep it as necessary by removing flag "he is not notable". Thanks. 0ukieu (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He had hardly 3 to 4 publications in the field of applied science. That is too far less. 0ukieu (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, weakly. He appears as co-author on a number of papers in the automated Google Scholar and Books searches, but they do not appear to be widely referenced. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think Google scholar is likely the best way to measure his impact in his subject and time frame, but I can't find any other evidence of notability or nontrivial coverage of him in Google news archive and Google books. And with no nontrivial coverage of him in sources we can use, even if we had reason to believe him to be notable (which I'm not seeing), there's nothing we can verifiably say about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 13 March 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. BigDom 14:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mangesh V. Nadkarni

Mangesh V. Nadkarni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Establish the notability or remove it, if the material does not support notability, add more 0ukieu (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Article is about a professor of English and authority on Sri Aurobindo. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is customary for deletion nominators to explain the reasons why they don't consider subjects to be notable rather than bark out orders to other editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has edited the nomination statement, thus removing the context in which my previous comment was made. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have reversed as it it is not the correct way. Thanks. 0ukieu (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment '. First of all this is not a hot-headed discussion. When a page remains as a not notable for a long time, there might be some problems with the page itself or the way how it is being administered. Whatever the case it may be, it is time to study the notability and keep/delete the page as appropriately. I have expressed my feelings on thia page. Someone might have written this page without realizing what could end up to such pages. Nadkarni was a professor of English in India and Sr. Lecturer in Singapore University. His work in english literaure does not make him notable. We need to evaluate his notability in his area. He might had spent time studying Aurobindo Philosopy for his life style. Yet, that may not be enough to be considered for notability. Let us have a fresh look on this page and keep it as necessary by removing flag "he is not notable". Thanks.0ukieu (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment' We need to evaluate - During the course of his professorship, he guided Ph.D. candidates and published his research in theoretical and applied Linguistics in national and international journals. The rest of the materials have no value on his page. 0ukieu (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unless it is a different academic entirely, the automated Google Books and Scholar searches appear to reveal some fairly widely cited papers on the structure of Dravidian languages. He has also written a book about Sri Aurobindo. He would appear to meet the notability guideline for academics. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can you be specific to write the criteria # used 1 to 9 for academics? Can you give here the numbers for his widely cited papers? I have not seen them. Have you evaluated his book on Sri Aurobindo? Is that considered as a scholarly work or has it the book made any impact on society? Note that his last position at the National University of Singapore was Sr. lecturer of english. In India, he was with the Central Institute of English. (Not an University). In India alone, there are more than 6000 colleges, institutes and universities and he is was one of them he might be the better ones working for such institutes worked in India. We have to be very careful to call many of these as notable in their fields.. Why did wikipedia set - "he is not notable" for all these years ? There is something wrong here and we need to discuss it. I suggest you to read Peter Heehs who also wrote books on Aurobindo. His page is clean. It may not be advisable to keep pages to please someone with the label "he/she is not notable". Remove such pages and move on. Thanks. 0ukieu (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's an easy way for you to have answered your own questions--follow the link above in the AfD heading to Google Scholar. His article "Bilingualism and syntactic change in Konkani" published in - Language, 1975 - (a major journal included in JSTOR) has 86 citations. There are some other articles also. Four of his books are in WorldCat. Now, all this is relatively minimal, but many of the works will be of interest primarily in India, and worldcat does not include Indian libraries (and there is no source that does). I would ordinarily not say keep for this, except he explicitly meets criterion 2 of WP:PROF, for he received the tribute of a festschrift or commemorative volume, Paranjpe, P. N., and Mangesh Vithal Nadkarni. Explorations in Applied Linguistics: Prof. M. V. Nadkarni Felicitation Volume. Pune: Shubhada-Saraswat Prakashan, 1995. ISBN 9788186411070, which is not just a work of parochial interest, as it is found in 30 worldcat libraries, including most of the most important US libraries and several European ones also. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG, a felicitation volume is proof of academic notability in India.--Sodabottle (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment why was it set on his page that Nadkarni is not notable

  The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Find sources: "2011 March 10" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (February 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

? Is Nadkrni notable because he was in academia or he followed Aurobindo? Note that Konkani language without a script is spoken by a very few people. I wonder his work on Konkni language alone makes him notable! Does he really 100% wiki notable or 50% or less? Is his work enough? He is no more and we wouldnot be expecting additional work from him. The number of citations you presented is pretty low for this type of work. The quantity of books is not the factor, it should be the quality. I do not agree with you, but it is your decision. 0ukieu (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment which Paranjpe are you talking about? Does wikipedia recognize him as a notable? Why was Nadkarni felicitated? Have you read the volumes? WP:PROF #2 reads like this - 2.The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. What highly prestigious was awarded to him? Anyone can filicitate anyone in India or elsewhere and there are many such types of felicitations. I'm afraid to say that you are breaking the WP:PROF rules. He was felicitated at a local level - not at national level. Shubhada Saraswat Prakashan was a Konkani people publication- Nadkarni was a Konkani(Saraswat). Who felicitated were his people0ukieu (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)0ukieu (talk) 01:48, 18 March 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 Black Christmas (1974 film). Will leave history intact in case anyone wants to merge anything. J04n(talk page) 18:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billy (Black Christmas)

Billy (Black Christmas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article violates SIGCOV and relies on primarily sources. -- LittleJerry (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I could find no evidence that he's notable independent of the films, and the article is mainly an excessively long in-universe plot description, but it's a reasonably good plot description and there is a bit of useful wording that might be incorporated into the articles about the pictures' plot summaries, so a merge and redirect (thus preserving the editing history) may be appropriate. Billy Lenz (currently a redirect to this article) is a reasonably likely search string. The puzzler is that there are 2 films and (according to the article) his full name is used only in the second film; nevertheless, I tend to think that the first film is the better redirect target. So, my less-than-perfect suggestion is merge and redirect to Black Christmas (1974 film). (And the corresponding item on the dab page for Billy should be revised to point to the film article.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into each of the two films, which can cross-reference each other as needed. Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to original film due to lack of significant coverage about the character in a way that could not be covered in either film article. In contrast, T-X may appear in one film, but I found coverage (see talk page) that analyzed her character pretty thoroughly in relation to portrayal of feminism. I'm not seeing that kind of coverage for Billy here. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the film article. Not enough sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:00, 15 March 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) 01:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Beautified Project

The Beautified Project (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 WP:PROD. My Elder Goth ♥ tells me to argue for a "keep", but I can't see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for this band. Please, please, prove me wrong! Shirt58 (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Sorry, this may be a cool band, but no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Not to mention that the contributors are edit-warring to maintain a version of the article that runs afoul of a laundry list of policies and guidelines, such as WP:COI WP:OWN WP:ADVERT WP:SPAM WP:EL WP:MOS. It's a lost cause, at this point.

• Delete. There are no references to back up the article's claims and I can find no evidence for any of it in reliable sources. Therefore the entire article falls foul of WP:V. Furthermore, even if true, the band does not appear to meet WP:BAND - specifically, there is no listed Armenian WP:GOODCHART so even if "best selling" albums equates to chart success criterion #2 cannot apply; I can find no evidence to support the existence of their record label so it's certainly not notable so criterion #5 does not apply. The best bet for establishing notability would be the nominations at the Armenian Music Awards. Whether this would be sufficiently "major" to meet criterion #8 is doubtful, but irrelevant without evidence; certainly it's not mentioned at the award website: [11]. So try as I might, I am unable to prove the nominator wrong as they requested - sorry. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:33, 15 March 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) 01:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miscellaneous Cartoons

List of Miscellaneous Cartoons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced list of miscellany. No discernible context. LordVetinari (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is about as indiscriminate a list as can be imagined. This user is going on quite a bender duplicating content as well, I left a note on their talkpage, hopefully we can reign in this energy. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Stop the presses! I actually agree with Tarc's characterization of this as indiscriminate! Even with a suitable explanation of why these "miscellaneous cartoons" should be so-linked, I can't see how that characterization would be encyclopedic. Sounds like an enthusiastic newbie or a chain-jerking troll... (oh, and Delete for those who need to see the bolded term) Jclemens (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No discrete standards for inclusion makes this an open-ended list. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These seem to be Disney cartoons that are not part of any series. All the article needs is a better title and an introduction explaining that. Topic is notable and of interest. (There might already be a list of them here.)Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears that everything in this list is already accounted for at List of Disney animated shorts. Tarc (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fuzzy inclusion criteria does not make for a useful discriminate list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hmm, there is no definition of "miscellaneous" cartoons given, so it would confuse readers, lists of the cartoons are probably available elsewhere (as said by Tarc), and I doubt anyone would come looking for "miscellaneous" cartoons. 123Hedgehog456 18:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This isn't just a poorly named list, it's an incoherent one. Even assuming this is intended as a list of nonseries Disney projects, the names "Mickey" and "Donald" in the titles indicate that the selection criteria aren't very logical. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:06, 11 March 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. BigDom 14:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Waters

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

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

Biographical article: Subject does not meet the GNG and fails WP:ANYBIO. Lack of reliable sources and no obvious Google hits. Pol430 talk to me 11:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sources needed for his life, but subject matter could be notable Smithsonian (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep as notable per se as former Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Gonzaga University. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of THIS SOURCE indicates that Fr. Waters was indeed made Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Gonzaga in 1983. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave 16:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC) There is an extensive list of publicatons that can be verified. There is much supporting information on http://www.gonzaga.edu

I have to ask this question: Is the purpose of a Wiki article only to parrot what some other website already says? If someone has published all these works, not with a vanity publisher, isn't that significant? Here is a guideline for notability of an academic : The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. Fr. Waters was a College Dean at Gonzaga. So the only counter argument is that either Dean of a College isn't a major post, or that Gonzaga isn't a major institution. I would like to see either of these specific qualifications argued, or else deletion of this article would be arbitrary and against Wiki guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidPersyn (talk • contribs) 16:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect some sort of bias in the nomination for removal of this page. I'm beginning to not want to put any effort into Wikipedia because of these deletion nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidPersyn (talk • contribs) 16:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Peace, friend, this is a slam-dunk KEEP here. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Dean is not the "highest level position" at Gonzaga, the president opf the university is. He may well be notable in other ways, but WP:PROF#C6 is a clear fail, very much the opposite of a slam-dunk. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Department heads of major universities have been regarded as fast Keeps in every AfD debate that I recall. "Highest level position" in this context does NOT mean University President. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• They may often turn out to be keeps, but they are not keeps by that criterion alone. WP:PROF says explicitly "Lesser administrative posts (Provost, Dean, Department Chair, etc) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone." —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Highest Level ACADEMIC post, which is applicable. The President is the highest level ADMINISTRATIVE post. Words mean things, no? Dave 22:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Stop your WP:WIKILAWYERING and read the clear text of WP:PROF. Not just the part you are quoting, but the part later that explains what it means. No, he does not pass WP:PROF#C6. End of story. You need to find a different reason to keep the article. In any case, dean is just as much an administrative post as president. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I don't think he passes WP:PROF at all (let alone #C6; see above) but the discocraphy seems to indicate some notability as a composer. However, the article is badly sourced and indiscriminate, making it hard to tell for sure. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. Thank you, Prof. Epstein, for the vote. I will continue to source things as I find online sources available and improve this over time, and hope others do the same in a true sense of collaborative effort. Perhaps then, his notability does come from musical publication, awards, etc. Again, in his milieu, documentation is hard to find, but I'll plug away at it. Dave 23:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I have reviewed, and believe that he meets the requirements of WP:COMPOSER #1 and #6, especially since listed in the French publication cited in the article. I would appreciate before deletion input from the classical music genre experts on the music side. Thanks! Dave 00:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Dave 00:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 18:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambuli

Ambuli (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 film does not yet exist and has no planned release date and consequently the article appears to fail to meet WP:NFF. PROD quickly removed without explanation (along with all earlier improvement notices) so raising for wider discussion. Though the publicity blurb claims this is the "first Stereoscopic Tamil 3D Thriller", this seems a weak rationale for an exception to NFF, particularly as there is no claim that this is first 3D film available in Tamil or the first 3D thriller with Tamil subtitles or dubbed. Fæ (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON#Films. Its minimal coverage[12] might merit it a metion in the director's article, but not yet as an seperate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NFF "going on floors today" and the shooting of ‘Ambuli’ starts from today is Indian English-speak for "filming has begun". This is a notable production with a notable Tamil star in the lead. More mainstream media coverage on the filming - [13][14]. I have seen tv coverage too. Its actually the first 3d film to be made in Tamil in 23 years and they are twisting it to say "first 3d film" ever (there were a few attempts in the 80s like elsewhere in the world)--Sodabottle (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sodabottle. Struck my earlier !vote. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:13, 11 March 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) 01:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donal Greene

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

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

PROD contested by Special:Contributions/SENTRY ROBOVAC5000. Initial concern was: Poorly referenced BLP. Despite being of start-class length, there is no explanation of why the individual meets the GNG. Despite de-PRODding, no explanation has been given. —WFC— 10:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 18:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - having only played in semi-professional league fails NFOOTBALL, does not appear to have done anything to be noteworthy outside of that, no indepth coverage.--ClubOranje^T 10:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and nothing has been found to pass WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:18, 16 March 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) 01:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé: The Ultimate Performer

Beyoncé: The Ultimate Performer (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 much reliable sources. I searched everywhere, and all I could find were retailers. Novice7 (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't find anything to satisfy WP:NALBUM and no awards. It'd be nice if there was a "-retailers" parameter in Google search. Similar AfD here.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent coverage, except for retailers. Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (G11) by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The digital handshake

The digital handshake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This book exists, but doesn't seem notable; not even the author has a Wiki page yet. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 09:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, article essentially without either content or context; all we get is the title and author of the book. The full title, The Digital Handshake: Seven Proven Strategies to Grow Your Business Using Social Media, looks like more Make Money Fast on the Internet stuff. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 10 March 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. BigDom 14:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KingdomQuest

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Prod removed.[15] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete Neither the article nor the BGG article linked make any assertion that the game is notable. No awards, coverage, etc. Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no notable coverage in the sources, could not find any reviews etc... This would only leave novelty of the game from a strategic point of view. The mechanism of rotating a cube is uncommon but not unheard of but it has depth problems. There are no competitions in the game. Not meeting any of the above points I have to conclude that the article cannot be kept as even meeting some of the points would not qualify the game.Tetron76 (talk) 15:51, 11 March 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) 01:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Noel

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

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

Basically unsourced bio of obscure regional musician; can't comprehend half of the article due to the press release style and fansite blather. Orange Mike | Talk 03:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO. Google News yields only local sources and passing mentions. Goodvac (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Miller (director)

Paul Miller (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails notability Alan - talk 03:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Look at this. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0589106/ Alright then, problem solved. Notability has been proven. Remember the rule is WP:BEFORE. Check for information yourself, with a quick Google news archive search or if the person is in the movie or film business check IMDB BEFORE you nominate something for deletion. Dream Focus 03:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, that couldn't be more wrong. An IMDb does not at all give automatic notability. What's needed is coverage in reliable sources that establishes an actual notability in more than just a trivial mention; I'm pretty sure it's a long-standing consensus that an IMDb alone is not proof of notability. And being in the film business alone is absolutely not a reason by itself either. Maybe you should be the one reading BEFORE, if I may suggest it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Click the link. Does he have over a hundred things listed? Are a lot of those things clearly notable? I wasn't making the case that having an entry made you notable, but instead pointing out when you have done that many notable projects you are notable. Dream Focus 04:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Has won a directing Emmy and a DGA Award, as well as being nominated on a number of additional occasions[16]; thus notable per WP:ANYBIO.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Arxiloxos. If someone is a television director and has won a Primetime Emmy (with three other nominations) and a DGA award (and another nomination) for directing, they are most likely notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Makes NYT which is sufficient. Many many credits listed in NYT, unless it is OR to point this out. Collect (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per an incredibly prolific career as director and producer[17] and award wins and nominations[18] that meet WP:ANYBIO. With respects, a nomination that simply states "fails notability" seems indicative of a total lack of due diligence before nominating. The subject's common name aside, what we have here is an article in need of expansion and sourcing, not deletion. I'll be glad to work on it tonight myself, as I see a sweet DYK on the horizon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Not a good nomination.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don Roy King

Don Roy King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails notability Alan - talk 03:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He won the Creative Arts Emmy for his directing work on Saturday Night Live. [19] Other news mentions of him to sort through. [20]] I'm going to go work on the article now. Dream Focus 03:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit to the article, with a link to a New York Times article confirming the information. Anyone who has played a significant part in notable work is notable. Dream Focus 03:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a link to his IMDB entry also. [21] Remember, always check there and Google news archive search BEFORE you nominate something for deletion. Dream Focus 04:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Won 2 Emmys, nominated for a bunch more[22], passes under WP:ANYBIO.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Arxiloxos. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per an incredibly prolific career as director[23] and award wins and nominations[24] that far surpass the instructions of WP:ANYBIO. With respects, a nomination that simply states "fails notability" seems indicative of a lack of due diligence before nominating. What we have here is an article in need of expansion and sourcing, not deletion. Another possible DYK for a 5x + expansion just waiting on the horizon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:30, 15 March 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 incubate. T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blooded (film)

Blooded (film) (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 reviews are pretty obscure, and I fear that we are merely being exploited to publicize this obscure hoax film which had no significant impact. Orange Mike | Talk 03:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also the notes at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Blooded (film). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same issues with this article, obscure hoax film presented with undue weight and of limited notability. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Definitely not a hoax. See Αθηνόραμα (October 25, 2007) google translate of original Greek However, lack of coverage currently fails WP:NF. I'm fine with userfication to its author, and if/when this one ever gets proper commentary in WP:RS, we might consider its return and caution the author about maintaining NPOV. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC) (STRUCK - See comment below)[reply]
  • The article probably isn't a hoax, since the film appears to really exist, but the film and it's marketing obviously is, so the nom is correct in referring to it as a "hoax film". That's not grounds for deletion per se, but is grounds for demanding a much higher stander of sourcing than a typical film, since we have to be especially careful about using truly independent sources, and have to assume everything said by the film's producers is part of the marketing. --Rob (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All films tend to use exageration and hype in their promotions. It's what makes advertising the annoying industry it is. Referring to the assumed good faith edits by a newcomer as "hoaxes" is perhaps more bitey than neccessary, as a new author[25] might use such in a perhaps forgivable, and usually addressable misunderstanding of Wikipedia's requirements for a neutral point of view. I note that even just today, March 11, 2011, JoBlo reported the film "will have its world premiere at the Bradford International Film Festival on Match 18. Revolver Entertainment will then release the film in select theaters and on-demand services on April 1 before it hits DVD on April 4."[26] As new articles about the film are even now being released, we might soon find it having enough coverage in RS to meet NF. Not yet, no... but perhaps soon. And if enough more becomes available, a cleanup for style and a return to mainspace is a viable consideration. Userfication to author is a non-bitey, no harm and no foul solution. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely not. Most fictional films make very clear that they're fiction, and some will even have an advisory stating they are fictional, just to avoid being sued by real people/companies that resemble the subjects. The problem is that we have a situation where the most important fact about the film (the fact it's a hoax) is not really reported on properly. I consider userifying unacceptable. We're basically linking people (by naming them) to a deception (invoking BLP). Also, this confuses reality with fiction. For example, the current article actually makes it seem like "Real Animal League" is actually real. It gives to citations about their "reception" to the film. We have a situation where the producers are intentionally planting false information on the web. We have to extra cautious about anything we pick up and repeat. This necessitates a complete deletion. If the film becomes well known, and well covered, then somebody can make a brand new article, with new content. There is nothing of value in the current article. It's existence discredits Wikipedia. --Rob (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • HUH?. You sent a link that did not prove your assertion, as the version you linked specifically states "... the film uses the fictional actions of an imaginary animal rights organization called The Real Animal League..." So pardon me, but it's difficult to read that sentence as an assertion that the "organization" is at all real. And so you might re-read the article again, as it has continued to evolve since your statement and all comments from or links to this fictional organization's non-reliable SPS website have been removed. And We're not naming even one worthy organization, nor are we saying anything derogatory about these organizations (though the film itself might, and that's on them). Since nomination, the article's POV has been neutralized as an addressable issue... and no matter the film topic, or how it is being marketed, as long as Wikipedia maintains a balanced neutrality, and follows the instructions of policy, a topic that receives enough coverage to meet WP:NF can stay, no matter the topic. And please keep in mind that I did not vote a "keep". If the film's controversial content is itself reported in such sources as The Independent which writes "...it all has the whiff of a clever publicity stunt" then our own linking to coverage in that article in a reliable source is exactly as required by POLICY. Good editing mandates that we provide our readers with balance and neutrality in such sourced information so as to not mislead. And you might not like it, but userfication for improvement of problematic articles IS an accepted practice that improves the project. But in considering the controversial nature of the film, and that it will premiere in less than a week, I now think incubation is the better choice so it can be worked on, kept neutral, and recive better sourcing from editors who do not have the COI of the author. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I linked to the then-current version, which indicated it was fictional in parts, but under "Reaction" treated the fictional organization as real. After I made the comment above, I removed the misleading sentence. The article superficially looks better now that the intentional distortions are removed, and is more truthful. However, we now say things that we know are true, but can't actually verify. We know "The Real Animal League" is an imaginary organization, and we say that in the article. However, we don't actually have a reliable source which explicitly states its confirmed that to be the case. So, we're in a bind, honesty demands we say the organization is imaginary, but it's a violation of policy to say so, without verification. What's the solution? complete deletion. --Rob (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Remember, inclusion in Wikipedia is not about truth... it's about verifiability (see WP:V). If the mentioned imaginary and controversial organization cannot be verified in reliable sources,[27] we do not write of it as it existed and we lend it no further credence than does our reliable sources. That this unsourcable (fictional/imaginary) organization was likely created as a plot deveice to help promote a film is a reason for us to be alert, but not a reason to delete an article otherwise being sourcable. The solution is not deletion... the solution is editing We'll know more in less than two weeks when the film has its premiere and its "message" stirs further controversy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • If we can't say anything verifiable about the most important truth of a topic, that suggests a lack of notability. When dealing with truly notable topics, it's always possible to cover all the major points, using reliable sources. Editing is the solution, only if there are sufficient available sources. However, there isn't enough, and there may never be. This may remain a nothing movie. Without a crystal ball we can't tell. Rob (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Again, please remember, inclusion in Wikipedia is not about truth... it's about verifiability. And to meet WP:NF, "truth" of a film's topic not a requirement... but it receiving critical commentary that addresses the film directly is... and so far, we do have reliable sources reporting on the film and we know when and where it will premiere. Your good faith suppostion that a controversial film on a controversial subject will not receive additional overage is just as crystal as supposing it will... though in considering the subject matter and how it is being promoted, my own good faith assumption is that it will get more coverage, and not less. This is why WP:INCUBATION was created as alternative to outright deletion. And yet again, please note that I am not saying the current article should stay in mainspace. What I am saying, being an editor in good standing with a proven track record for article creation and a strong history of improving articles for the project, is that I have a good faith belief that it can be improved within a reasonable time. WP:Incubation is a proper course of action in this case. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Complete lack of substantial sources, and it's also to soon. --Rob (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and userfy as per user Schmidts comments detailed comments, if the user wants userfication. - It is WP:TOSOON, it will be much easier to assess notability after release. Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• clarify - it is not that the article is a hoax (i.e., the film does exist), but rather that the film itself is a hoax, a gigantic lie in the Blair Witch viral marketing tradition. The creator of the film is obviously an employee of the company that made the film, and has done no edits which do not aim at publicizing the films and its makers; it's impossible to AGF as far as WP:COI is concerned on this one. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was my experience as well, logo , advertising poster and company logo and soundtrack sample all uploaded at the same time by the article creator have since been deleted as copyright violations, no evidence of permission but the uploader claimed to own them all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote to Orange Mike when he brought his concerns to my talk page,[28] pretty much no matter who writes an article or their reasons for doing so or their inclusion of hype in their article, if the film, no matter its subject matter, is released when the sources state it will be and subsequently recieves critical commentary, it 'might' merit inclusion under WP:NF. If the film is not released and does not receive independent critical commentary, the article will not be back. The fictional film's subject matter or how it is presented is not the issue at hand, as the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for the reminder. Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Film uses totally misleading viral campaign about events that never happened. There Youtube video page has under 1000 views. Not notable even as a viral campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.159.217 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  To animal rights IP 81.102.159.217, the fictional film's subject matter or how the film presents its fictional subject matter is not the issue at hand, as the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. It will either eventually meet WP:NF and then can be edited and sourced to our standards, or it will not meet NF and will not return. It's really just that simple. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Incubate now per WP:ATD as I have myself been addressing the article's style and tone and do not have the conflict of interest as might the article's author. I have a good faith belief, specially as the film is nearing its release date and is of a controversial enough nature, that it will likely get proper coverage after release. What was first sent to AFD is NOW more suitable for placement in the incubator for a few weeks. If it does not get the required coverage, it will not be back. A win-win for the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - I support this option presented by Michael and his improvements to the article and the docu-films release date in three weeks have made incubation a viable option. Off2riorob (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources already present in the article seem adequate and we can expect more soon as reviews typically appear during the week of general release. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The film has yet to be given it's premiere so reviews would be scant at this stage and many existing reviews may be speculatory or based only on the premise of the film or the trailer. I personally know someone who has been invited to the première screening in order to review it. Jalendarous (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2011— Jalendarous (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment Blair Witch is one analogy that can illuminate the deliberate obfuscation of the line between documentary and fiction that the producers of this film engaged in, but a better one is The Amityville Horror: A True Story Anarchangel (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and userfy. It appears that my words were truer than I knew: the obfuscation presented by the creators of Blair Witch as publicity is now referred to on WP as a "ground-breaking campaign", which is true neither in the sense of it being legitimate to lie about whether film events are real, nor that they were the first to do so, as Amityville had done it already. Ground-breaking in that many people decided that they did not care anymore, perhaps? I still do.

The sources in the article are of a very low standard, amounting to nothing more than blogs and fansites. If someone can find even one citation in Google News, I might revise my opinion.

The article has been much improved from the original monstrous amalgamation of a PEACOCK on a SOAPBOX, but there seems to be a tendency to hold onto uncited or even uncitable claims about its subject. The film is said to "address the hunting debate in the UK", and it "has provoked reactions from parties on both side of the hunting debate in the UK", both claims, naturally, uncited. Even trivial facts that most certainly should become citable, should the film become notable, are cited by stretches of the imagination, for example the fact that the Greek source was written in 2007 and the interviewee said, "I just finished <<Blooded>>" are the only rationales for citing that "Principle filming was completed by October 2007." Who knows what part of the filming process the interviewees work represented? I have seen a lot of claims of SYNTH in my time here, but this is actually the first time I have seen the real thing.

MQSchmidt's characterization of CRYSTAL as CRYSTAL is tortuous and ignores TOOSOON. Rob/Thivierr is correct to point out that there is considerable doubt about the future of sourcing for this article, especially given the quality of the sources so far. Anarchangel (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is not currently ready for mainspace, and it is certainly not I who said anything about current sources being perfect, and indeed, it was I who spent time neutralizing the current version to address the gross misrepresentations and mis-leading use of false sources originally included by its author... making certain to include a relable source specifically stating the film's promotion "has the whiff of a clever publicity stunt".[29] Yes, it is WP:TOOSOON, but as we DO have confirmation in reliable sources that the film will premiere at the Bradford International Film Festival on March 18,[30] and have limited release in select theaters and on-demand services on April 1, and DVD release on April 4,[31] I think your characterization of my use of crytsal is what is "tortuous", specially as I specifically suggested WP:INCUBATION because it is TOOSOON... as a guideline encouraged reasonable alternative while we await anticipated sources, the "future" of this article as rests in limbo will be deternined when it is (or is not) screened and reviewed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to remind those who do not know or misunderstand what the incubator is for: "The article incubator is a place for holding articles that do not meet Wikipedia's content criteria (WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:V), but a rationale has been put forward that the article meets the incubation criteria, which means there is an intention that the article can and will be improved."

Incubation criteria:

1. The article does not meet the excluded criteria (does not now meet exclusion criteria)
2. The article has been either previously deleted or has been through a deletion process and a decision reached that it does not meet inclusion/content criteria (discussion ongoing)
3. A rationale has been put forward by at least one person that the article could meet inclusion/content criteria if given time (more than one editor has stated this rationale); for example:

   Sufficient reliable sources which deal with the subject in depth may be found, though they may not be readily available online at the moment (expected within a few days)

   The article may be rewritten to remove any suggestion of original research or biased point of view (already done)

   The article may be developed sufficiently to clearly establish notability (considering the controversy of the film's topic, is emminently do-able)

4. A willingness has been established by at least one person to work on the article; (me, for one) or
5. a convincing reason has been put forward why the article would benefit from being put on hold now, to be worked on in the future (such as a belief that the subject is important, but as the subject is not current or popular in the developed world, reliable sources are not easy to come by, though they could be found eventually) (the "convincing reason" is that the article is premature and my reasonable argument is that its debut will likley bring sources and critical commentary in reliable sources)

Usefication to its author is problematic, so why be opposed to it being incubated??? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Men of Essex

Men of Essex (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:V. The reference provided isn't a reliable source and doesn't refer to any organized group called the Men of Essex. Google searches show the term is commonly used, but seems to simply refer to men from Essex, not to any particular group of Essex men. The only reference I can find which capitalizes Men of Essex is this not very reliable looking source. Pburka (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In the context of the Peasants' Revolt the term may be validly used to distinguish the Essex rebels from those from Kent, but to project from that to the supposition that they were a distinct faction with a clear political agenda is not supported by the sources. In traditional English usage, the men of ...., the women of ... or the people of .... is a non-notable way of distinguishing people by use of a geographical label. Confusingly, Men of Kent has acquired a particular meaning - see East Kent. AJHingston (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You'll get more results trying "Essex men." Nevertheless, this probably does not deserve a separate article - it should just be mentioned in the Peasants' Revolt article that there were subdivisions who did different things. ("The Kent men entered through the Bridge Gate and the Essex men through Aldgate," "On the 14th of July the king rode out to meet Jack Straw and the Essex men at Mile End...But the Kentish men broke into the Tower as the king left") Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP: Although a distinction has grown up between the Men of Kent and the Kentish Men, no such distinction has arisen between the Men of Essex and the Essex men. It is not a matter of whether the "way of distinguishing people by use of a geographical label" is notable but whether the people themselves are notable and this has not been challenged. Regarding the terminology, I don't think there is a need to be precious about it, but as there was a significant group of people from Essex who marched upon London I think it is clear that there is scope for an informative article detailing this, the journey they took, who were their leaders and related events in Essex in the sort of detail which would be less appropriate in a general article on the Peasant's Revolt.Harrypotter (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But all of that is in the Peasants' Revolt article. There has to be a question about whether the Essex rebels are independently notable, and I do not think the case has been made. Remember that the contemporary sources are incomplete and not necessarily reliable, these are an example, and Wikipedia should not base itself on what might have been the case. AJHingston (talk) 17:42, 7 March 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 // 02:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone can find something more substantial to write about this. There doesn't seem to be anything to write about the Men of Essex other than that they were involved in the peasants' revolt, that that's already covered in the Peasants' Revolt article. At a push it might qualify for a redirect, but as I suspect there are many other groups using the title of "Men of Essex" it's barely worth it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:40, 15 March 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 deleted by User:Graeme Bartlett (speedy G12) (NAC). Raymie (t • c) 14:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Cutter and Josiah Savage

William Cutter and Josiah Savage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Uses a blog as its only source. WP:OR Phearson (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I think it is the blog. The Interior (Talk) 02:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE seems to be un-notable and self-promotion Alan - talk 03:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Possible hoax; I haven't yet found any mention of this outside of the snowhillhistoricalsociety site. If they were infamous, they would be mentioned elsewhere. If this is real, they are quite thoroughly forgotten. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I deleted this as it was a word for word copy of the blog. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12:12, 10 March 2011 Graeme Bartlett (talk | contribs) deleted "William Cutter and Josiah Savage" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://snowhillhistoricalsociety.wordpress.com/cutter-and-savage/). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinion by MoonLichen makes no sense in terms of Wikipedia policy, and that by Greg Comlish is unpersuasive in view of WP:BURDEN. Transwiki or merge is also not possible with zero sources. Whether to redirect is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  06:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beach bunny

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

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

Unreferenced substub on non notable slang term. No assertion of notability. No sources. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Contested prod; prod removed by new SPA created for the express purpose of removing prods. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Slang dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Carrite (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What have we become? Look down at your hands, the ones typing these words full of vitriol. Are they hands that create and build? Are they hands that caress and nurture? Or are they hands that destroy? No, my friends, of course you are not destroyers. You don't want to delete these articles. It's not you. It's not who you are. --MoonLichen (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do like the picture of two women at the Jersey shore. One doesn't ordinarily think of "beach bunnies" as being an east coast thing, I found that enlightening... Carrite (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Transfer to Wictionary (if that combination makes sense). Google searches seem to use it as a brand name of swimwear-- which is not the point of the article. Wictionary is the place for defining terms, not here. Wabbott9 (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The term has been used in passing for decades, but I have not been able to find any reliable sources that discuss the topic in depth. By the way, I am looking at my hands, and they are typing thoughts that convey Wikipedia policy rather than any vitriol. Cullen328 (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Surfing culture. Borock (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is a perfectly good slang term, but that doesn't mean that it belongs outside of Wictionary. I agree with Gene93k, there doesn't seem to be any difference between beach bunny culture and surfing culture. This is emphasized by the inability to find substantive discussion of beach bunnies in non trivial publications. --Bejnar (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Beach bunny culture is clearly distinct from surfer culture. This article needs citations, but it can and should be fixed. Greg Comlish (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. While it's clear that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion for terms that should be defined there, I have not been able to find any in-depth coverage of beach bunnies in reliable sources - indeed I'm struggling to find in-depth coverage in unreliable sources also. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I wonder how old the use is, since online sources of its origin seem sparse. I can find a 1952 reference to model Bunny Yeager titled "Beach Bunny", so its clear it was in use by that point.[32]. I'm not convinced its not notable, because we went through the same thing with Guido (slang), but this is harder.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The oldest a quick google books search finds is [33] from a 1959 magazine. The context makes it clear that the readership is expected to know and understand the term. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ahh, that google date is deceptive, as they sometimes are for "books" which compile periodicals. That entry is for a 1986 episode of Silver Spoons. This 1964 reference[34] in Boy's Life magazine though, shows its a valid term in surfing culture at that point.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect My preference would be to redirect to Beach#Beaches and recreation. It seems like this section could then be expanded into its own article. The original beach article could primarily serve as a discussion of the beach as a geological feature. A separate article, maybe called beach (recreation), could include reference to beach bunnies, but also sunbathing, beach volleyball, swimming, sandcastles, surfing, etc. Currently, no such page exists, even though it would seem to logical to include. In fact, sunbathing currently redirects to sun tanning, which isn't exactly the same thing. One seems recreational, whereas the other seems cosmetic (hence, tanning booths, etc). A new page could at least highlight this type of activity as well as address the current nomination. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:27, 17 March 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) 18:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathon Tiffoney

Jonathon Tiffoney (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. Concern was: A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
2011 March 10 – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. (PROD-nn) Having only ever played in Scottish Second Division, he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. PROD was contested without explanation. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Just to point out that the correct spelling appears to be JonathAn rather than JonathOn, which may affect search results. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 12:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My recollection (from somewhere that I'm failing to locate now) is that the Scottish Football League is recognised as an awkward marginal case on the Football notability criteria, as a mix of full and part time teams and even players within teams? Even with that, Tiffoney may at this point be a marginal case anyway, but it's worth pointing out that he has also played in 3 games against Scottish Premier League clubs during 2011. AllyD (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the SFL First Division that has a mixture of mostly fully professional and a few (sometimes none) semi-professional clubs. Tiffoney has only played in the Second Division, which is mostly (if not wholly) semi-professional. He plays for Ayr United, which is currently a semi-professional team. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Hand King

Second Hand King (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 independent coverage from third party sources apart from the Reverbnation site, which appears to be a self-made profile. Non-notable musician - does not meet WP:MUSIC. Cntras (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 24 February 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) 01:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ovide Lamontagne

Ovide Lamontagne (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. Three-time unsuccessful candidate for office; only claim to notability is chairmanship of New Hampshire State Board of Education, but that claim is currently sourced to his own campaign website, and does not in and of itself establish notability. (The claim is enough to preclude a CSD nomination, however.) Almost all of the citations in the article are sources which are not independent of the subject (campaign site, company bio), blogs, or op/ed columns. Horologium (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. lacking indepth third party coverage besides of failed candidature. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 14 March 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.