Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 5

< 4 March	6 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Cordeaux

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

The news articles supporting the article are about Ms Meaden (Dragon's Den fame) with Cordeaux mentioned tangentially as her friend. Being a Creative Director or a Managing Director is not a guarantee of encyclopaedic notability and though the Company might be a suitable topic for an article the individual appears to fail the WP:NOTNEWS policy. Searching GNews and excluding matches to Meaden shows two matches which would not be significant enough to justify an article. GBooks shows no matches. Fæ (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I attempted to improve this stub a few weeks ago, but none of the sources I found and added give very significant coverage of Cordeaux. He probably doesn't meet the notability guidelines. I was planning to nominate it for deletion myself if no-one else improved it soon.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find passing mentions and some quotes from him, but nothing substantial enough to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 7 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. Big Dom 18:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dist Architects

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

I find no matches in GNews or GBooks for this company and being co-based in London I would expect to find some English language matches as well as Turkish ones. There are two awards mentioned but no claim that they won either (I note that neither award has a Wikipedia article). This appears to fail to meet the WP:ORG criteria. Fæ (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would be a speedy but for the claims to two awards. As neither of these awards are verified, let alone shown to be of significance, this leaves the article with zero claim to notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. This "article" says they were runners up in the 2006 award. Note that the site looks to be one that rehashes press releases given this link. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:43, 8 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 Memphis City Schools. —GFOLEY FOUR— 03:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bellevue Middle School

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

Non-notable school. Wikipedia is not a yellow pages. Delete. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (well redirect) to district as is normal in these cases. AfD was probably not needed unless such a merge had been tried and failed before... Hobit (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Definitely a lot more to say about this than eight words [1], might get established as independently notable outside of its district because of its International Baccalaureate affiliation; but until then, the link in Memphis City Schools suffices. Mandsford 22:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Memphis City Schools. Destination was not necessarily obvious, since a lot of Shelby County Schools (Tennessee) use Memphis addresses. --Orlady (talk) 05:40, 8 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 under WP:CSD#G3 as a blatant hoax. —Angr (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chubebabe Language

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

Claims to be a language with over 98 million speakers in Somalia - but has no references or Google sources to back it up at all. Fails WP:RS and is created by a single use account - Chubebabe685 (talk · contribs) Google search. Delete. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is something made up one day. It is so patently ridiculous that it does not even qualify as a hoax. The Ethnologue has no record of this and there is no such thing as the "Afro-Scandinavian" language family. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - Unless there is some terrible misspelling, this article seems to be a hoax. Rotmo (talk) 06:40, 6 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 Gyeyang-gu, Incheon#Education. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugincheon middle school

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

unremarkable middle school. Attempts to redirect to the town's article per convention have been reverted several times by the article's creator. Taking to AFD rather than break the 3RR. RadioFan (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: This is no WP:N. --Idh0854 (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: Is Gyeyang-gu, Incheon verified to be the appropriate "town" article for the location of this school? When attempts were made to redirect this page there, was the school mentioned or described anywhere in the target article? --Orlady (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the location has not been validated. The school was not mentioned in the target article but there wasn't much to merge there. A subsection on education would be appropriate for the article and would make a good redirect target.--RadioFan (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This looks like a merge and redirect, but only after an appropriate destination has been identified. There's no indication of notability for this school, but the photo and any other valid content should be merged to some other article where this page can be redirected. --Orlady (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gyeyang-gu, Incheon. I have created an article section in the locality article and added this content there (see Gyeyang-gu, Incheon#Education, along with some additional information about the school that I found through a web search. It is not surprising that past efforts to redirect this resulted in a revert war -- it must be frustrating for inexperienced good-faith article creators when their content is deleted and the page is redirected to some other page that does not even mention "their" topic, particularly when the only communication they receive is a generic talk-page template. Inclusion of the middle-school content in the locality article ought to resolve matters. --Orlady (talk) 14:55, 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, Stifle (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment according to the article, the merge target should be Gyeyang-gu, Incheon.--RadioFan (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Doesn't meet criteria by a long shot. Shadowjams (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 03:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gyeyang-gu, Incheon#Education per Orlady and RadioFan. The general precedent for non-notable middle schools is to merge/redirect them to their nearest locality. Cunard (talk) 08:12, 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 no consensus. The main "delete" argument was WP:BIO1E, while the "keep" !votes attempted to refute that assertion. The "keep" !votes based on uniqueness have no basis in policy. However, the "delete" !voters have failed to address the issue of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE brought up by Victor falk. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Carr

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

Individual known for local WP:ONEVENT. ttonyb (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OneEvent doesnt apply here. She is the first woman since 1992 to be sentenced in her county, and its the Aileen Wournos connection, she is only the second woman to be on Floridas death row as of now. I could go on and on. Its a keeper for me. It could need some rewrite perhaps as I did it in quite a hurry as I had other business but that can be fixed also. Also local doesnt automaticly means not notable, so that no reason for deletion either.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would also like to add that I say Keep because it is a major story reported in various media in the whole US state of Florida and not only a local story for a certain Florida area.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing that she is unique. There's a difference between unique and WP:NOTABLE. NickCT (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But cant unique also equal notable?. It seems a bit like you ruling out a very mutch so truth that women on death row are really unusual. Also the other factors involved in this particular case.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also as stated below when doing a simple google search on Emilia Carr you get 583,000 hits so it is a widely publicized case.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

completely flawed argument for notability. see WP:GOOGLEHITS. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More than well aware of the policy LibStar. It says that googlehits alone don't guarantee notability or lack thereof. They can certainly be used as evidence though. What evidence do you offer in opposition? Nada.... NickCT (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course unique can be notable, but unique is not necessarily notable. I have a unique freckle on my rear. I wouldn't call it particularly notable.

Googling (Emilia Carr) will give you any article with the name Emilia and Carr in it. For instance, a page with "Emilia and her best friend Carr went to the park". Obviously not relevant. Google ("Emilia Carr") gives you that exact name and 4,650 hits, but there are a lot of Emilia Carr's out there; hence you get pages with stuff like "Emilia Carr the rodeo clown from China arrived in Tuscon". Again, clearly not relevant. Google ("Emilia Carr" death sentence) - 2,400 hits or ("Heather Strong" "Emilia Carr") - 550 hits for actual relevant hits. It's better to test using Google News or Yahoo News, as those return actual reliable sources. As I said in my comments below, search engine testing makes this topic look barely notable at best. NickCT (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously comparing a freckle to the mentioned case of Emilia Carr. I mean seriously?. Im still not convinced as the number of articles that you are mentioning consists of Emilia Carr material is still enough to point towards notability for this individual.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I wasn't "comparing a freckle to the mentioned case of Emilia Carr". I was trying to explain the difference between "unique" and "notable". NickCT (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will limit myself to commenting here as I am helping to clean up the article per request. ONEEVENT is not a blanket policy for deletion of articles, but a guideline to determine whether an article about the event or the individual(s) involved is more appropriate in the context of notability. Sadly, the execution of a female inmate is more unique than a murder in this case. KimChee (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand a woman being sentenced to death is by media reporting often more notable than a man getting sentenced to death because its mutch more rare that a woman gets to see the inside of death row.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if it was just about the murder, then I think this may have had to go. However, this article is about a person who has become only the second woman on Florida's death row for the crime, and that, for me, makes it worth keeping. Orphan Wiki 13:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the circumstances discussed above, she's notable. I don't think this is ca case for changing the title to Murder of ....; given the sentence, it's now Carr who is the more notable DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)~~killing people is notable.~~ DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that last phrase was a partial sentence from a draft, & I did not mean to include it--it is not true unless there is some special reason, which there is here, DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia.--195.84.173.30 (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really appropriate to basically say to every single Keep sayer here that they are wrong. I referring to your own WP:BLUDGEONing comment to me a few days ago.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Concur, the notability from the sentence itself trumps ONEEVENT, I think. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being a female on death row definitely gives her notability --Errant ^(chat!) 14:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really appropriate to basically say to every single Keep sayer here that they are wrong. I referring to your own WP:BLUDGEONing comment to me a few days ago.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a female ond eath row is notable, even beyond the crime itself.--VictoriousGastain (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really appropriate to basically say to every single Keep sayer here that they are wrong. I referring to your own WP:BLUDGEONing comment to me a few days ago.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not seeing the notability of this event. There are only two main sources, and they are local media. This person does not appear to have attracted attention beyond the local community. The argument for notability appears to be built entirely on the premise that this person is one of only two females awaiting the death sentence in Florida - but that argument is not provided for within our guidelines, and seems to be one that is being used purely for this discussion. Are we creating a new notability criteria here? And what is the notability exactly? Is the notability that Florida has few females sentenced to death (is that really notable?) or is the person sentenced to death notable? And what would happen if tomorrow 100 women were sentenced to death in Florida? That event in itself might be notable, but what would happen to this individual's notability then? She would be one of over 100 women.... It seems to me that this person committed a crime which did not generate any media interest beyond the local area. That she is one of two females currently on Death Row in Florida is incidental and changeable, and is more reflective of some form of comment on the death penalty in Florida. This is a list of Women Who Have Received The Death Penalty in Florida, which of these would be notable? And would it depend on how many other women were imprisoned at the same time as them? I'm not convinced here. I think this person and Tiffany Cole might be mentioned in footnotes to an article on Florida's Death Row, but I'm not yet convinced they are notable enough in themselves. SilkTork *^YES! 12:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject appears to meet the general notability guideline in regard to its sources. There is no mention in these guidelines about the locality of citations, but I think you do bring up a fair question about this; I encountered a similar query during FA review of another article on capital punishment. Some coverage of Carr's death sentence has been carried by national news organizations, but in searching for biographical information for the article, the best sources have generally been the local media as they have been the ones more interested in the background of the suspects and victim(s) outside of the criminal case itself. KimChee (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that I don't think the article does meet GNG. The crime she is imprisoned for is a single event that has attracted no significant attention beyond the local media. GNG has this: "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." The main claim for this person's notability is not the crime, but that she is one of two women currently on Death Row in Florida. But I am not convinced that such a claim is in itself valid, and I don't see any guideline regarding such a claim. Without some guideline saying that being one of 16 women who have been sentenced to death in Florida is significant, I don't see that our current guidelines support this article. That she is currently one of two is a tenuous claim to notability as that number can change at any point - and as notability is not temporary I don't quite understand why a temporary situation out of her or our control is a sign of notability. My point being that if the notability is dependent on there being only one other woman on Death Row in Florida, and then that number changes, then the claim to notability will have shifted. If she was the first woman sentenced to death, that would be notable, or the last woman executed before the law changed, etc. There are circumstances which would ALWAYS be true. Being one of two at this moment in time doesn't appear to me to be highly significant. So, given that she doesn't meet GNG, specifically WP:NTEMP, and doesn't meet WP:BLP1E / WP:ONEVENT, and various aspects in WP:EVENT including WP:GEOSCOPE, then I am genuinely struggling to see what people are a)seeing as notable in this article and b)where the guidelines are regarding such notability. The more I look at this the more I am seeing that our guidelines are written to disallow such articles. SilkTork *^YES! 16:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the fact remains that me and eight other users here thinks that her being one of few females on death row is giving this article notability. Also as KimChee says and I agree the subject is within the general notability guidelines for inclusion. Also local story/person doesnt automaticly means non-notable. I know that many people are against these kind of articles but it doesnt change the fact that murder is notable in many occasions. It also does pass ONEEVENT per sentencing, woman on death row, aileen wournos connection etc etc.. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that several people have made a comment such that being a woman sentenced to death is notable, and that is the key to this debate. My concern is that I don't see a guideline which says that such a situation is acceptable as a rationale for notability, while I see several guidelines which indicate that this sort of article is not notable. Our guidelines do reflect consensus, and if there is a general consensus that a female being sentenced to death is notable, then we should write that into our guidelines. If we had such a statement then we wouldn't have the situation of this AfD. What is the Aileen Wuornos connection? SilkTork *^YES! 16:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked a question related to this AfD at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Is a woman who is sentenced to death in the USA notable? SilkTork *^YES! 16:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry, WP:ONEEVENT to a T. Keepers that are making vague hand-waves at some sort of "being a woman on death row is notable" assertion without actually showing that that is a notable exception are at best unhelpful, at worst disingenuous. Wournos was notable for being a female serial killer, a true rarity supported by reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, ONEEVENT at its clearest. In the U.S., mere death sentence doesn't convey notability, even on a woman; no comparison to Wuornos (a genuine controversy). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorry but have to disagree with you both. Females on death row are a rarety. Just look at Florida, Carr is only the second at this time in the Women part of the death row. Carr definitly makes WP:ONEEVENT by far as a user said above... only her sentence in itself trumps WP:ONEEVENT. I still say Keep-.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And we cant compare Aileen Wournos and Emilia Carr.. its like comparing apples and oranges. However the fact that Carr is the first woman from the same county as Wournos to be sentenced since the day Wournos was sentenced in 1992 is notable. And as I stated before a local story doesnt equal non notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What it amounts to is trivia, a semi-interesting factoid that the media can mention as they cover this story. Being rare or unusual does not qualify automatically one for notability. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to differ. Those factors in fact makes this article notable. Beyond the crime itself even. When including sentencing to death, being a female, the aileen wournos connection then we definitly have a Keeper.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SilkTork's reasoning about WP:NTEMP is logically faulty. If, at some time in the future, thousands of women are executed in Florida, it will not hinder the fact that there was a time when it was a rarity, and therefore, articles about such exceptional and (and by then) historical cases would be notable in a future wikipedia. ^walk victor falk^talk 17:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sufficiently notable for inclusion.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To briefly expand, the person has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, and that is sufficient for notability. The "one event" argument doesn't seem to stick in a case like this. Many who have committed crimes fall in the same boat under one interpretation, yet have articles. E.g., Tiffany Cole, Richard Henyard, James Autry, James Hubbard, Jerry White (criminal), etc., etc. Perhaps not as notable as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda carty, but still enough that deletion would not better the project.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, i figured at some point someone would comment on my keep rationale (other than an improper retort of OTHERSTUFF). When I saw how commonly we have articles on people on death row, my oneevent concerns were ameliorated as an exception to notability.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was asked to explain my keep opinion above, as I was admittedly rather minimal in giving the reasoning. The sentence is what makes for the particular notability in this case. I would be prepared to argue that any actual execution in the US at this time is a major event, part of the historical record, and makes for notability. This does not now apply: her sentence has not yet been carried out, and I hope will not be, for there were none of the horrific circumstances that affect even those who oppose the death penalty; even if it is, it will, by the usual US appeals process, not be carried out for many years. The execution or proposed execution of a person in one of the protected groups in society, such a people who are still children, or those of low intelligence, is publicly considered a matter of special concern--it arouses a sense of unfairness even among those who support the death penalty. I think to the public, women are still one of these groups--whether this is still reasonable is not our concern. But the article is written disproportionately: the emphasis should not be on the details of the crime, but on the trial and sentencing. If there were only the choice between the present article and none, I would say none, on the principle that we are not a tabloid, a principle I have always endorsed. But editing to make a suitable article is possible, and a properly edited article would be appropriate. The attention here will be enough to ensure it is carried out. I don't work on crime topics usually, but if no one else does the necessary, I shall. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good response. And your concern can be fixed via editing so no major problem there. Thanks for explaining your stance more.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Yahoo News search for "Emilia Carr" - 8 results, Google News for "Emilia Carr" - 2 results. Judging by search engine test alone, it seems like really really borderline notability here. NickCT (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand a overall Google search on Emilia Carr gave 583,000 hits. That tells me that Emilia Carrs case and her as a person has been widely published.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to question if Yahoo News search engine is reliable as it is obviously wrong. With that many hits as Emilia Carr gets on a regular Google search something is wrong.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There are only 429 GHits and 2 GNEWS hits. One should use quotes to remove the individual word hits and to focus on the combined phrase/name. Also, please note the initial Google numbers are notoriously incorrect and one must go to the last page for the correct counts. ttonyb (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But it doesnt change the fact that when searching for Emilia Carr on the regular Google you find alot more than 2 news stories on it. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment &ndash: Huh? There are two and only two news articles that show up for "Emilia Carr" on Google. See [2]. ttonyb (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on archives in the Google news search, you will find that media coverage of this case dates back to 2009. KimChee (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You are absolutely correct, the number jumps to 11 or so. Thanks for pointing that out. ttonyb (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ - You're testing incorrectly. Read my comment above. NickCT (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im not convinced. Sorry.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be sorry. In cases like this notability will be quite subjective. I see it one way, you see it another. That's all. I would point out however, that you did create this article, so it's somewhat unlikely you're going find my arguments convincing, regardless of how much logic they might have behind them. NickCT (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the county is merely trivia -- one of two women is a current event that is likely to change at any moment. Perhaps a small mention of her in the Aileen Wournos article, or in the county article in a future section about overly aggressive use of the death penalty, or even a sentence or two in an article about the death penalty in Florida. But it's not significant to the US or the world, and nothing in the article asserts notability to the US or the world.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Local doesnt equal non-notable. Also where do you get the information from that its likely to change at any moment? That sounds more like a personal believe or speculation than actual facts. The other woman sentenced was sentenced years ago. And as someone above here stated and I quote: If, at some time in the future, thousands of women are executed in Florida, it will not hinder the fact that there was a time when it was a rarity, and therefore, articles about such exceptional and (and by then) historical cases would be notable in a future wikipedia. We cant delete on an assumption or pure speculation of future events that might not even be happening and will not effect the notability anyway. One thing however that isnt an assumption or pure speculation is that females on death row are rare in the present time and in Florida as stated only two women are on death row, Emilia Carr is in fact notable. Peace out.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I'm inclined to agree that WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP apply here. She doesn't seem sufficiently notable to pass our inclusion guidelines. Several of the comments above say things along the lines of 'she's notable for being a woman sentenced to death' - but I'm not convinced that women on death row are so uncommon that that automatically justifies an article for every single one. This report [3] states that there were 61 women on death row in January 2010; I don't think we need an article on each of them, if their sentence is the only 'notable' thing about them. Robofish (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(As an aside: I was invited to comment on this discussion by User:BabbaQ. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robofish&diff=cur]) Robofish (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all thanks for responding;). However back to the topic, I dont really understant your statement about having an article about each of them. First of all we dont have an article about each of them because all of them might not first of all be created at all by someone but they all share one thing in common they are 1 of only 64 out of millions and millions of people in the US. That is in fact notable and in my opinion would infact give support to any of them to have an article about them as they are all unique. Also the fact that Carr only is the second woman on death row as of now is in fact notable and as established by some users above she trumps ONEEVENT. May I also say that only in Florida alone there are hundreds and hundreds of male death row inmates. Just to give a perspective on the 64 women total in whole of the US. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I stated to Robofish, we have to put the female death row question into perspective, today 64 women are on death row all over the US combined. When comparing to the male population only in Floridas death row we find hundreds upon hundreds of death row inmates. That gives a quite good perspective on the situation of uniqueness for this kind of articles and people. When then also considering the fact that only two women are on death row in Florida that gives them both in fact notability along with the remaining 62 women. Even though I doubt every single one of them will have an article created for them.:) It is in fact notable to be a female death row inmate today, like it or not its a fact.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After doing more research I found 238 inmates currently on Floridas death row. Only two are women. I rest my case on the notability on female and male death row inmates when it comes to uniqueness which is in fact a reason for inclusion in itself. Also people forget that juries tend not to give females the death sentences even in the most horrendous of murders so a death sentence for a female is both unusual and notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you have looked into this yourself and concluded that based on your own research, being a female on death row is a unique and notable occurrence in the American penal system. Thank you for invalidating your !vote on this matter, per the now-obvious original research that is the primary basis of your conclusion. Tarc (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Tarc, please note that WP:OR only applies to articles, not discussion in AfDs. BabbaQ's own research does not invalidate any of his opinion or his !vote. Coincidently, I do not agree with his opinion, but his WP:OR does not support invalidation. ttonyb (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We can't just make things up based on our own opinion, that is the essence of OR. Whether it is article content or spurious notability arguments is irrelevant. Tarc (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good words;).--BabbaQ (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me and more than 10 other uses believe so yes. If you dont like it thats OK.. but please remain civil. I havent invalidated my opinion at all, actually your comment makes my opinion even more reasonable actually. While the "keep side" actually gives reasons for their believes in this persons notaiblity the "deletionists" only gives pure speculations about future events, and also referrs to guidelines which can be interpretated in a number of ways. Anyway, Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One event. I don't see anything that makes this bigger than an individual murder by an individual person. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the sentence itself trumps ONEEVENT. Then also count in all the other factors already mentioned above in messages from a number of individuals. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you've said that a couple of times already, I believe. Do you think I didn't read about the other factors? And didn't you read that a number of individuals have said this is ONEEVENT? Drmies (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, if possible remain civil. No need for remarks of that kind, even if someone is of another opinion. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there is nothing uncivil about my remark. I do, however, resent the implication that you feel the need to point out what's already been said often enough in this discussion. Editors here, including myself, are perfectly capable of reading the entire discussion, and don't have to be reminded every time of what's already been said. It feels like badgering. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you refuse to acknowledge anything I do the same. You know..... hmm--BabbaQ (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no guideline regarding women sentenced to death,. Some people think it is notable, while others don't. At this stage in the AfD there is no clear consensus on that point of view, so we use our usual guide to notability, which is the range and depth of coverage in reliable sources. As this case is covered only in local media, there is no indication of notability. My reading of our guidelines is that articles such as this are not to be included on Wikipedia. SilkTork *^YES! 17:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just saying that ONEEVENT as most people here are referring to even the one putting this one up for deletion ar enot grounds for deleting this article. ONEEVENT can be twisted by all users both in favour of Keep and Delete of an article. What im also is confused about is that users here that says Delete claims that there is no guideline for this kind of articles but on the other hand there is non stating that "women on death row are simply not notable" either. Also silktork, local story isnt the same as non-notable. This is simply a guessing game were people can say delete or keep on pure speculation of future non-notability etc etc.. but the fact is that women on death row are extremely rare and infact notable in itself. As I have mentioned before other factors also pointing towards notability for this particular inmate.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We cant simply delete this article on pure speculations lets return in a few months and if nothing else has happened then or opinions are very strong at that time lets put it up for Afd again.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this time its so obvious that this Afd will end with No Consensus as neither side can refute the other sides arguments completely. Both sides have right in parts of its argument but its no way near a clear consensus for either of the sides. Also the speculations on both sides for notaiblity is a question of taste and shouldnt be the grounds for deletion. Peace out--BabbaQ (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A question of taste? Nonsense. It's a disagreement about an issue of content and the applicability of our guidelines. Maybe your argument was based on "taste", but mine wasn't. Please don't preemptively decide how this is going to be closed. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say it again, please try to remain civil and dont take everything personal. It doesnt help your cause.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – BabbaQ, I see nothing WP:UNCIVIL in Drmies' comment nor do I see him taking any comments personally, he is simply voicing an opinion as you are. He is right, this is not a question of taste, but a question of meeting the guidelines. In addition, there is not a clear cut end to this AfD as evidenced by its relisting. Perhaps you should consider reading WP:STICK. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest WP:STICK to Drmies also;). That is my last message in this particular nonsense discussion. cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:39, 6 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, NW (Talk) 19:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. In my opinion, BLP1E is irrelevant in that it helps determine whether notable material should be named after a person or an event. What I want to know first is whether or not this passes WP:GNG. There is obviously enough coverage in reliable sources to piece together an article that is relatively substantial, however, all the coverage seems to be from one, local geographic area. If or when the coverage goes nationwide, I will likely !vote for keep. Location (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion Local story isnt necessary equal to non-notable. Also the argument can be twisted as this case has reached alot of attention in the state of Florida which makes it a major state story and thereby could be seen as something to Keep for that reason. Just as for example the winner of Miss Florida USA sometimes gets an article a long time before the major Miss USA pageant even though the girl only one the state pageant and not the national Miss USA pageant. And by that reasoning above you could even delete the Miss USA winners because they havent won the international Miss Universe final and only the national final. And what its all come down to is that Local isnt automaticly non-notable. (atleast not for simply being a local story). Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few sources to be found outside of the Ocala/Gainsville area, so it does not appear that this case has even received much attention in Florida. If there is no notability outside of the local area, then it's just news coverage. (When an individual is known for a single event, I believe WP:GEOSCOPE and other sub-sections of WP:EVENT should be relevant.) Location (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment excessive WP:BLUDGEONing is occurring here. Would the user in question please stop trying to dominate everything. You've made your point countless times. LibStar (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If only you practised what you preached.;) I dont think you are aware of it but you yourself are sometimes WP:BLUDGEONing away pretty good. Anyway no point in discussing this any further. I have made my point in this discussion as you say pretty darn clear.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There is only local coverage for an article which runs afoul of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a directory of every criminal who gets her just punishment. No policy I can find says there is inherent notability for "woman on death row" articles. Edison (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of the arguments above have been based on arguments like "she's a woman on death row therefore notable in my book" which has no grounding at all in policy. Instead we do have a specific policy in cases like this, WP:CRIME: "A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person." Capital punishment in Florida (which doesn't even mention this article's subject!) would seem to cover this. The exceptions to that are if it is a "well documented historic event." I don't see that here, it's simply a local one off killing. So, with only very local coverage, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E seem to apply. Valenciano (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A textbook example of non-notability per WP:CRIME. The relative rarity of women on Florida's deathrow is immaterial, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. simply being a female on death row is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - while being a female on death row is certainly rarer than being a male, it alone is not a reason for notability, and this doesn't seem to extend beyond BLP1E. Yaksar (let's chat) 00:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - there's some interesting information here not just about the crime but about the prisoner's death row status. But WP:CRIME seems to cover this pretty well and has consensus. There are good reasons for not having an article on every murder to ever appear in a local newspaper. Probably better to cover this in a broader article about death row in the state. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PERP. She doesn't meet the notability criteria for criminals. Further, the pertinent information in this article would be better included in the article Capital punishment in Florida. There is no need for a WP:Content fork on Carr.4meter4 (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, the article is notable. And it is covered by reliable sources. It should remain. Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. you have failed to address how it meets WP:PERP. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really appropriate to basically say to every single Keep sayer here that they are wrong. I referring to your own WP:BLUDGEONing comment to me a few days ago.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Murder, female on death row, gives her notability. Was covered by lots reliable sources and has many hits on Google. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

being a female on death row is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really appropriate to basically say to every single Keep sayer here that they are wrong. I referring to your own WP:BLUDGEONing comment to me a few days ago.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since when have we been running gender quotas on death row inmates? This is a textbook case of WP:BLP1E, and none too spectacular at that – single murder; the subject clearly fails WP:CRIME too. If anything, it just proves that some states sentence people to death all too easily. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Hatch --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to question what the Afd result of Colin Hatch has to do with Emilia Carr? its two different cases, like comparing apples and oranges.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable. Murderer, death row, has received much coverage, etc. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 21:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closing administrator. Most of these keep votes as "obviously notable" have not demonstrated how this article meets the notability guidelines at WP:PERP. They haven't addressed the issue of lasting notability and why this article should not be deleted per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that someone is a murderer on death row does not make them inherently notable. I ask that you not count votes and consider the policies involved carefully when making a close. Thank you.4meter4 (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the closing administrator: It is not because she is "obviously notable" that this topic should be kept but because a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable news sources that are independent of the subject. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid response to WP:ONEEVENT concerns, though. You should know this by now. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc everyone has the right to voice their opinion, even if you yourself might not agree with it doesnt make it unvalid.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are usually just as bad, I'm afraid. Many people are calling for a deletion based on a specific reason. Some people are calling for keeping for a reason that does not address the actual point raised by the deletion calls. Tarc (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your comments trying to invalid other peoples comments arent exactly the best ive seen on Wikipedia either. Your only reason as I see it still for doing it is that me and those you write to say Keep instead of Delete. Having different opinions doesnt equal invalid. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I have said. You are free to "vote" as you wish. But we have an article nominated for deletion because of WP:ONEEVENT, and simply saying "it is mentioned in reliable sources does not address that nomination rationale, since "one event" isn't about sourcing. If I ask "what is 2+2?", answering "apple" will never be an adequate response, no matter how many apple-voters there are. Tarc (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt comments like this one from you Your comments are usually just as bad, I'm afraid. a try to invalid another persons comment? --BabbaQ (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Closing admin:I agree fully with ret.Prof this person has recieved significant coverage. Its simply guessing game from both sides on how Emilia Carrs notability will play out in the future. But per fact she is notable now as one of few women on death row all over america, only second woman in the state of Florida as of 2011 and many other reasons. The article is well-sourced. I could go on and on about how notable this article is. Also local doesnt equal non-notable, also WP:ONEVENT doesnt apply here as established by a number of "keep users".It should be Kept, thats my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That's your opinion? I would never have guessed, given any one of your thousands of comments above....... NickCT (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, atleast I am making my point instead of just commenting for the sake of it like you just did.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've made your point, and you've made your point, and you've made your point. I think you may need to take a deep breath and remember that Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_that_important. NickCT (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dito.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's "ditto", and I'm not the one with over 50 posts to this page. NickCT (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if I should laugh or just ignore you. You are very hostile. And you seem unaware of this. Anyway, this is my last comment to you. No point in communicating with someone unwilling to.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Arguments like "first woman since 1992 to be sentenced in her county" and "second woman to be on Floridas death row" are simply not relevant - unique is not the same as notable. Nor are all the "obviously notable" comments, because being sensational, being in all the papers is not enough for an encyclopedia article. The fifth bullet point of the WP:GNG guideline expressly defers to the policy WP:NOT, which includes WP:NOTNEWS. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." The question to ask is not "has this got a lot of coverage now?" but "Has it any long-term significance?" and the answer is, no. JohnCD (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not WP:ONEEVENT and not WP:109PAPERS(Many stories are reported in the news just once on a single day, or over a period of a few days, and then are forgotten.) since there has been continuous coverage since 2009 (see WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE). And this continued coverage is due to the fact that she is a woman on death row. ^walk victor falk^talk 13:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Victor, ONEEVENT doesnt apply here. Totally wrong reason for putting this Afd up, not that there are really any good reason for it from the start anyway;) There is a high number of Weak Keeps here that could just as well gone for Weak Keep, just pointing out the obvious.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 1E and PERP. The fact that she is one of only two female death row inmates in Florida may (or may not) imply something noteworthy about the Florida criminal justice system, but does nothing to make her life notable. If only two California Black Walnuts were destroyed in the Northridge earthquake, that would not make those two trees notable. ^Bongo_matic 17:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman: it's not her life that is under discussion of being notable, but her being a woman and on death row.

I find the comparison of a person on death row with walnuts rather tasteless. This is a matter of life and death. Wouldn't the Northridge quake still be wikinotable if only two people had been killed? ^walk victor falk^talk 18:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldnt have said it better myself Victor.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it couldn't have been said any worse, either. "Life or death" ? The melodrama being injected into this discussion by the proponents is beginning to get out of hand. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the Keep sayers that gets out of hand in this discussion. We are pointing to our opinions on this article the "deletionists" only try to bascially say you are wrong we are right. Without actually stating there believes beyond the usual referring to guidelines which can be twisted around for any purpose. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. Editors are using long-established editing guidelines and policies as a basis for why they feel an article should be deleted, while pointing out that those who wish to keep are using personal opinion as a basis for their arguments? Fascinating. Tarc (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – BabbaQ, before you decide to answer Tarc, here, on this AfD page, I would ask that you both and anyone else so inclined to get involved please do so on the user's talk page. In other words, let's keep this page focused on the discussion at hand – the notability of the article's subject. ttonyb (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Victor Falk: It is not a straw man. If her bio isn't notable, but her being a woman on death row is, then what is called for is commentary on the number of women convicted of capital crimes / given the death sentence in Capital punishment in Florida or some other article about the Florida criminal justice system. In such a place, many facts that the "keep" voters (correctly) believe are important and noteworthy—but are obviously beyond the scope of a biography—would be appropriate. ^Bongo_matic 22:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the bio is not the main scope of the article, they can have titles like the Emilia Carr case or Trial of Emilia Carr, Death row inmate Emilia Carr or somesuch. SeeTalk:Jordan_Brown#Requested_move or Talk:Karima_El_Mahroug#Straw_Poll_-_What_should_the_title_of_this_article_be.3F. Personally I think the current title is fine, but this is something to discussed at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here at AfD.
Only 49 women have been executed since 1900, and 2 of them in Florida since 1972, a fact that I note is mentioned in its own separate section of Capital punishment in Florida#Women. When I look at Category:American prisoners sentenced to death, out of 184 entries little over a dozen are about women, with claims like "only woman in death row in Ohio" or "killed three people". List of United States death row inmates tells pretty much the same story; and when I look at List of United States death row inmates#Florida, I learned that there are ~~over 9000~~(that's melodrama) over 400 inmates on death row, as of December 2010. The numbers speak for themselves. ^walk victor falk^talk 23:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those suggested article names would be notable either. The pertinent information in this article would be better discussed in the larger context of capital punishment in the state of Florida. Indeed an article entitled Capital punishment in Florida already exists, and the Emilia Carr case can and should be discussed there. There is no need for a WP:Content fork on Carr.4meter4 (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)In that case your !vote is a merge and redirect, isn't it? ^walk victor falk^talk 00:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More like delete and redirect. The topic is way too over detailed here. Two or three sentences would be all that is required at that article.4meter4 (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is usual to keep the history for the record and saving the references (wp:preserve), unless there are particular concerns like wp:blp, wp:copyvio, etc, which it doesn't seem be a concern for this particular article. ^walk victor falk^talk 00:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I would prefer to have it deleted to avoid easy recreation of the article or overly detailed content being transfered elsewhere.4meter4 (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be renamed and focus more on the more notable parts of this persons life then why would it be better to delete it anyway?. Seems like you acknowledge that it is in fact parts of her life and crime that are notable but you simply want it deleted anyway? I might be wrong but that is what it looks like. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Falk... Your argument above seems to be about why Carr is unique. We all agree that Carr is unique. But for the 100th time, UNIQUE is not necessarily NOTABLE. Ok? Do we get it now? How bout as a mathmatical equation - UNIQUE ≠ NOTABLE. NickCT (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we are to talk in mathmatical terms then Unique does certainly not equal non-notable. Unique per fact does often equal notable as they are UNIQUE. What you and most deletionists seems to forget here is that per fact females on death row are RARE about 60 in the whole nation while for example only in Florida about 200+ men are on death row right now. It is rare and should be treated as sutch when it comes to notability in comparison to a male inmate.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Writing equations in all caps is a novel way to conduct mathematical proofs to me. Most intriguing, this could be a paradigm shift in boolean algebra; the Nick CT theorem would definitely be WP:Notable! Congratulations.) Yes, unique is not necessarily wiki-notable. Death row inmates that have for example type O negative, or some rare genetic disorder are not notable. It is if it is a factor or pertinent in relation with capital punishment that it can be notable. For instance, a person that would get the death penalty for shoplifting because of "three-strike-you're-out" laws. Or for being a woman, since violence, and therefore punishment, is much rarer; there is plenty of research on the subject: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] ^walk victor falk^talk 00:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of interesting points, some of which can be covered in an encyclopedia, and some of which seem more likely to be OR/SYNTH. Either way, there is no argument here why the biographical details of the subject of the article under consideration are of encyclopedic note. "Merge and redirect" suggests, incorrectly, that the content of this article should be moved somewhere else, when in fact the overlap with this article given appropriate coverage at Capital punishment in Florida would be minimal. ^Bongo_matic 02:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo, you asked me on my talk p. for an additional comment, so: Articles about a person do not and should not focus around biographical details--that's tabloid writing, regardless of the nature of the person's notability Encyclopedic writing should focus on what the person is notable for--in this case, the crime and the ensuing legal and moral issues. If we wanted to retitle the article as State vs. Carr or whatever the formal name of the case is, I'd have no objections. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That title is better than what we have currently, but even so, the legal facts of the case show nothing unusual in terms of Flordia state law. It's pretty much a routine murder trial and conviction. The only thing unusual about the case is the gender of the defendant, which really doesn't make it notable enough for a wikipedia article.4meter4 (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"X vs Carr" is good. ^walk victor falk^talk 05:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the gender is very much so a factor for keeping this article. As I stated above only about 60 women in the whole US are in death row, when comparing that to Floridas male death row alone only there are over 200 men incarcerated. It is rare and in fact notable in itself. And I believe that is the main subject of contention here. And it is a guessing game and that is why it should be kept for now and changed like Victor Flak suggests.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's something interesting: according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, pregnant women should not be executed (ICCPR, Article 6.5). Based on that fact alone she has a claim to notability. ^walk victor falk^talk 05:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News flash (I got this from the article) . . . she's not pregnant, nor was she put to death while pregnant. Enough of the fallacious arguments, please. ^Bongo_matic 05:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She was pregnant when arrested, but not when charged with a death-penalty eligible crime.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Covenant discusses when the "sentence of death . . . shall not be carried out", and makes no mention of arrest charging, or sentencing. Moreover, even if it did, or if her case were somehow covered by the Covenant, the relevancy to her notability would only be established by coverage, not by one editors conclusion that it imbues notability on her. Generally, notability does not arise by OR or SYNTH. ^Bongo_matic 05:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of her pregnancy: almost every single source: [14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],The last time a Marion County Judge gave a woman the death penalty was back in 1992. Aileen Wournos was executed ten years later.(...)Tuesday, Judge Willard Pope sentenced 26 year-old Emilia Carr to death. "A mother's worst nightmare," Maria Yera told TV20. "I didn't think she was going to get the death penalty.", The gruesome crime is made more unusual by the fact that Carr was eight months' pregnant at the time. ^walk victor falk^talk 06:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if your syllogistic errors are intentional or just consequences of your trying to justify your position, but this thread is not about the pregnancy generally, but specifically about whether she's notable because of the Covenant, which is neither relevant or covered. If you're simply changing your tune to say that the pregnancy, having been covered extensively, makes the individual notable, I think you are back in the territory of the (disputed relevance of) PERP and 1E. ^Bongo_matic 06:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take it as you please. I maintain that she is notable in North-Central Florida. ^walk victor falk^talk 06:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Falk is making a good point about the pregnancy. Yet another proof pointing towards notability. Also a name change of the article and some changes of the text itself can also be made. What it all comes down to is that deleting this article will not be benefiting for the Wikipedia, both Keep side and Delete side comes with good arguments which makes it virtually impossible for this Afd to end in anything else but a No Consensus decision and a possible change of the article name and direction of the text on Emilia Carr.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@falk - re "Based on that fact alone she has a claim to notability." (stunned silence) - What!?!? Are you serious?!? If I found out that according to the laws of Turkmenistan people named Carr shouldn't be executed, would that make her more notable? Are you making this stuff up as you? Review WP:NOTABLE. Let's have policy based arguments. NickCT (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean NickCT I have respect for you, but arent you the one making things up now? Writing about Turkmenistan? What? Are you serious? What does Turmenistan has to do with Emilia Carr in Florida?. But to answer your question, this isnt about Turkmenistan it is about the law in Florida/US and there according to Falk there is this law. I believe him too,. I find this to be a strawman argument. Cheers..--BabbaQ (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read Falk's original comment. He said he found something in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that makes Carr more notable. How is that different from me finding something in laws of Turkmenistan that might make her more notable? I'm guessing you're finding this to be a strawman argument b/c you have no answer for it, and you like throwing the term "strawman" around.

What Falk is arguing is both illogical and WP:OR. Let's stick to the guidance outlined in WP:NOTABLE please. NickCT (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The new stories surrounding her unique circumstance, the death sentence, and the underlying murder, all add up to clearly meet out notability standards. I don't have a problem with a reformat/merge to an article about the incident as we are wont to do for circumstances similar to this one.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a reformat of the article as Victor Falk and Brewcrewer suggests is something that can be done easily. If needed. Why delete information that can simply be reformated.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link to "new stories" please. NickCT (talk) 19:47, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2012

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

totally pointless content fork of Donald Trump WuhWuzDat 18:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete let's see if he decides to run before we consider an article. CTJF83 19:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- yup, this is unnecessary absent an actual declaration. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Premature, and there are big distinctions in what a candidate may do after declaring (s)he's running vs. before. Content can be adequately covered in the Donald Trump article, and this title should not remain as a redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need for a seperate article that consists of nothing other than conjecture. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But not for the reason nominated. The article is not "pointless", rather it is too "pointy." The topic is Mr. Trump and the info is already a section in his article. The campaign does not exist yet, if it ever will, so shouldn't be the subject of an article. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and clarification: While the content is decidedly "pointy", its existence as a separate article is quite "pointless" at this point in time. WuhWuzDat 19:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

okay :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - he has not even made his decision to run for certain yet, so this is at best WP:CRYSTAL right now. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The key points IMHO are that the Donald Trump article already has a section on this topic, and there has been no announcement of candidacy.--Hokeman (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Basically an article for what is presently a non-existent subject. Should not be re-created (or redirected) unless Trump actually declares candidacy, or least starts an exploratory committee.--JayJasper (talk) 21:05, 7 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Djent

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

A "fairly new" genre of music, referenced only to a websiter that is not independent. Nominated for Speedy A7 by Alexf (talk · contribs), but this is not eligible for that criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitant keep. There do seem to be a lot of reliable sources([20],[21],[22],[23]), but it does need better, and less COI, sourcing. Corvus cornix_talk 22:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Djent" is a slang term for a guitar style, not a separate genre or individual movement. Delete.86.174.128.171 (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a weakly written article, but the term is notable. It is indeed not a genre or movement, but it's a sound that is coming to define a particular style of metal, one that is becoming very popular, and just because it's not a genre or movement does not disqualify it from having an article. Dgtljunglist (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Looks like a G4 to me - no improvement from the prior deleted version. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Extensive and dedicated Guardian article cited in the piece plus copious Google hits indicates that this is indeed a valid subgenre of underground metal and worthy of encyclopedic coverage. The article has issues with sourcing, but it is my opinion that this is correctable through the normal editing process. Absolutely NOT "speedy delete" territory. Tsk tsk. Carrite (talk) 15:34, 5 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, J04n(talk page) 18:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Djent is a genre that is gaining quite a bit of speed in the music industry - dozens upon dozens of bands have adapted to the genre, and there are thousands of fans who would say they are fans of the style. Although there may not be many "well known" reliable sources on the subject, there are a number of websites and fan clubs dedicated to the sytle, such as "got-djent.com" or "the djentlemans club." Plenty of bands could easily be labelled as Djent here, making a Wikipedia page for the genre relevant and keep-worthy. --Andy^{Speak to Me (Breathe)}_Contribs 21:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have read that djent "seems to be the same as progressive/groove metal or mathrock" : it's not. Djent is a real new music genre, taking its roots in some mathcore bands like Meshuggah or Textures, but developing as a fully-defined (and sometimes strict) genre. I have read that it's only a way of playing guitar : it's not. The roots of this music are indeed rhythmical structures. The article from The Guardian may be the only proof you need about the legitimacy of an article about Djent on Wikipedia. 79.92.249.14 (talk) 13:36, 6 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) 23:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aneez Bazmee's Next

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

unreleased, untitled, UNFILMED, film. WuhWuzDat 18:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no coverage. CTJF83 19:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The announcement that the director is doing this as yet unnamed Hindi remake of The Hangover[24] "might" merit a sourced mention in the director's article, but the project currently lacks enough coverage to merit an independent article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The director's article now has that sourced mention.[25] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 10:55, 8 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) 23:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Abdul Ghani Khoso

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

WP:V, while quite likely accurate, I've been unable to find any reliable, secondary sources to verify the information in this biography of a living person, additional sources would be warmly welcomed. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unverified BLP. J04n(talk page) 18:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per J04n. Tooga - BØRK! 20:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 6 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) 02:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foodland (film)

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

Brand-new film of no real distinction, propped up by purely local references. Not much different from an advert, really. CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you elaborate by what you mean by "no real distinction"? It seems that the film has significant coverage per WP:GNG; it does not matter whether it is local or not as long as it is independent. This is a very appropriate reliable source that can be used further. I do agree that there is a POV problem, mainly with the "Reception" section -- it is hard to tell if these statements are cherry-picked or really represent the overall reception. I would encourage limiting that section, but otherwise am not clear why the whole topic should be deleted. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage. Found this, which was not in the Wikipedia article. Article just needs a cleanup in terms of cleaner references and full extraction of useful content. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also worth noting, the director's article is also up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Smoluk. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup. Was easy enough to fix the ref formats there.[26] Recognition for his work and a notability to Canada is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - 'Recognition' in the form of a write-up by his home-town newspaper--and certainly not to 'Canada'--scarcely counts as actually encyclopaedic recognition. You seem to have confused Wikipedia with a listings service. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have made no such confusion, thank you. Winnipeg is the capital and largest city of Manitoba, Canada, and is the primary municipality of the Winnipeg Capital Region, with more than 60% of Manitoba's population. Founded in 1872, Winnipeg Free Press is one of the major papers serving that region (not a pamphlet or throwaway)... and not limited only to Manitoba, is available accross Canada (much like the New York Times or Chicago Sun being available outside those two US 'localities'). It would be expected that a Canadian notable would be covered in major Canadian press. Wikipedia does not demand that a Canadian notable topic receive world-wide coverage. And please, having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is not the implied singular "a write-up", and quite specifically meets the requitement of WP:N and WP:NF. Its not as if we're speaking of a local bake sale being mentioned in a neighborhod gazette. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting the applicable critieria of WP:NF. While yes, the article needs cleanup, addressable issues are no cause for deletion of a notable topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And which criteria would those be? Really, you'll have to do better than making vague gestures and hoping no-one notices. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Calendar, let's be civil here. It's just a web page on a website. We can discuss its merits by referencing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and debating each other's points. The general notability guidelines state, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." As far as I know, there are no guidelines that say that the coverage has to be more than local. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. Guideline does not mandate that coverage of any topic be worldwide... and Winnipeg is not exactly some backwater of civilization. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is not vast, but it is sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall taking part in another Foodland related AfD some time ago. If so, it must have been for one the actors, I guess. Clayton, I think. Anyway, Google shows pretty good coverage in the Free Press (and the Manitoban). While it may not have "received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" per WP:FILMNOT, I do agree that it meets with WP:GNG, so Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted because never listed: the nomination was not completed, so this AfD has never been transcluded in the daily log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage to establish notability.--Michig (talk) 15:54, 5 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bi winning

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

Neologism lacking evidence of extensive use or importance. ttonyb (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- per nom. The only source gives twenty or so of these Charlie Sheen quotes- we can't make them all into articles. Perhaps it could be slipped into the Charlie Sheen article, but I don't really think that's necessary. --E♴ (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with salt if necessary- There as absolutely nothing at all notable about this phrase. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hard. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bi delete. I think "Wikipedia is not for stuff made up one day" could apply here too. No real meaning either.SPNic (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- WP:NAD and "not for stuff made up one day by Charlie Sheen" both seem to apply here. Chris the speller (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously, although this is more a case of WP:NEO and WP:GNG than WP:ONEDAY. Feezo (Talk) 01:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, we don't need to breath life into one-off Sheenisms. Tarc (talk) 20:46, 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. Big Dom 09:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Vancouver Voice

(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. I am unable to find significant coverage of this alternative newspaper in third party sources. PROD was contested with the circular reasoning of “hard to find coverage of papers in other papers, can itself be used as a reliable source”. Onthegogo (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, it is circular. This is not an OSE argument but see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Monthly for a similar discussion, especially the comments by Aboutmovies and Oakshade. This is just a comment, please don't take this as an argument or !vote about the notability of Vancouver Voice, I plan to do more research before deciding. Valfontis (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Valfontis (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —Valfontis (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator of the article. It is very hard to find lots of media sources about another media outlet. Newspapers hate mentioning their competition, so I consider a sign of adequate notability and verifiability that this paper did garner a description at launch in the region's paper of record, The Oregonian. In other words, so there are sources. This is the only alt weekly for Washington state's fourth largest municipality, and meets the general notability guideline. I do think the unreferenced parts about the different sections/columns needs to be removed or scaled back, since they're not verified. I'm going to do that now. Steven Walling 20:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So it looks like the Oregonian link is suffering from the notorious case of link rot that is the O-vanish. Let's try to dig it up, since it will show that the article's subject got an exclusive little piece that I think is sufficient to prove general notability. Steven Walling 20:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got access via the public library to the O archives from 1987 on. Drop me a note on my talk page if you'd like me to look up any stories. Valfontis (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned above, it's not likely one will find coverage of a newspaper in another media outlet. However, the coverage by the Voice has been mentioned by The Oregonian, The Columbian (both these articles mention that investigation by the VV is what prompted official action), National Book Awards, The Vancouver branch of the NAACP, Metro (see Metro (Oregon regional government)), The Washington State Conservation Commission, The Portland Coalition Against Hate Crimes, Washington State University, The Vancouver Symphony, Prison Legal News, and the Washington State Labor Council AFL-CIO. VV is also a member of the Vancouver Downtown Association, and the Alternative Weekly Network. This is an established (4.5 years) alternative newsweekly that is a professional media outlet, and is being treated as such by other professional media outlets and organizations, not some fly-by-night photocopied zine. Valfontis (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Valfontis; enough evidence that this paper is referenced by other reliable sources to pass WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals#4. Some of the text of the "History" section of the article appears to be close to text on the "About the Vancouver Voice" page[27] at the paper's website; this should be examined and revised to avoid any WP:COPYVIO concerns.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources in the article and the sources provided in this discussion. There is no doubt this passes WP:GNG. —SW— ^express 04:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per points made by Valfontis, Steven Walling. (As a side note, the policy behind the notability guideline is verifiability. In the case of a media outlet, its own existence does offer a great deal of verifiable information (without circularity): for instance, circulation figures provided in a newspaper's masthead are audited, and its coverage may be verified by visiting a local library.) But the best argument for keeping is the one already made: significant coverage in the metro area's paper of record is sufficient for the general notability guideline. -Pete (talk) 06:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec with closure of AfD)Delete Please look at copyvio issues vs. vanvoice.com/about-voice. Trove.nla.gov.au does not list the paper. Worldcat is aware of a "Vancouver Voice", but there is a previous "Vancouver Voice" mentioned here that printed from 1992 to 1999, and the reference at WorldCat shows no years when it was published, and no ISSN number. I searched for "archive" on the paper's website without seeing that there is any searchable material that would offer "enduring notability". The reference from msnbc is evidence of a functioning newspaper, but if this is a functioning newspaper, why is there nothing more available about it and there may be a copyvio for what we currently have, with sourcing problems as well as dead links for the rest. Given a choice between this article and no article in the encyclopedia, I'd say no article. Unscintillating (talk) 10:07, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Theodore

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

Non notable footballer who has not played at a fully professional level - only at junior or semi-pro level. Has been deleted twice previously as Mathew Theodore via PROD, lets AfD it now so that it can either be salted or at least allow a CSD#G6 to be done in the future - unless of course he plays at a fully pro level or gets sufficient coverage to satisfy the GNG. The-Pope (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- per nom. Fails WP:ATHLETE --E♴ (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This may change, but not notable at this time. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, I agree with the nominator. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet any notability guideline. VQuakr (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:10, 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. Big Dom 09:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Mooney

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG as a necessary article. Aaaccc (talk), 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete NN, very small town mayor. CTJF83 19:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - She has won an award from Flare magazine, and some other coverage. There's also a little bit of local coverage. Not quite enough for me to say keep for a politician.-- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 7 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. Big Dom 09:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calla Guy

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG as a necessary article. Aaaccc (talk), 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, mayor of a small town. CTJF83 19:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this mayor. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 7 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 all. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Bahrain GP2 round

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

Article is abandoned, four year old sports event, and one supporting another larger event, no work in two years, and nothing in the article that cannot be gleaned from seasons summary 2007 GP2 Series season. Falcadore (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons as above, all these articles are is essentially just a filled out infobox:

--Falcadore (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is obvious that there is a need to delete all 2006-2008 GP2 reports. Also 2008 Belgian GP2 round has copyright violation. Cybervoron (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to comment - should we package in all the GP2 reports then? --Falcadore (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- No, other reports are referenced, contain classification and more of them have race descriptions. They do not consist only of one line and the templates. Cybervoron (talk) 10:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ones you mentioned I meant. --Falcadore (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for this misunderstanding. Yes, we should package in all 2006-08 GP2 reports. Cybervoron (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, well just looking on the surface, each one of these nominated articles convey virtual no information to the reader. Most of them simply say "This was X race out of X. Held at XXX track. Driver X won", which is already mentioned on the article for the series. As they are, the pages are useless, and I would support deleting them all.

The bigger issue here is whether GP2 races are notable enough to warrant an article for each race. Although newer articles may be more complete, I don't see why we should delete some and keep others - if we do ultimately someone will recreate them on the basis newer ones exist. Really whether or not GP2 races are notable enough is the real question. QueenCake (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment, while it is A bigger issue, it is not THIS issue. This is about deleting abandoned, unreferenced, incomplete articles. Article which have been written up and referenced represent a completely different subject, dispite the similarity of content matter. Needs a separate discussion than this one. --Falcadore (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GP2 races aren't relevant enough for an article each. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of whether the articles in question could be notable (and I think they could), as they stand the articles fail to demonstrate any notability. Unless someone adds in content and sources which demonstrate that the topic is notable, the articles hold very little value. AlexJ (talk) 16:49, 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 redirect to No. 395 Expeditionary Combat Support Wing RAAF. BigDom talk 08:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1 Combat Logistics Squadron RAAF

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

No edits except a table since several years Peaceworld111 (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to No. 395 Expeditionary Combat Support Wing RAAF unless the article is developed during this AfD. It's probably possible to write an article on this unit (most RAAF ground squadrons have received reasonable coverage), but it doesn't seem that anyone is interested in developing the article on this unit. Nick-D (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nick-D. IMO this unit would likely be notable under WP:MILMOS/N, however given the lack of content it should probably be redirected to a parent article (without prejudice for later re-creation if additional material can be found which is supported by reliable sources). Anotherclown (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nick-D. Normally, I wouldn't agree to such a course of action, but given that there is literally no content at all, I have to agree with his rationale. Closing admin should clearly note that there is no prejudice to future recreation of the article with something more than an infobox, and that this descision is not made based on notability or any other argument that the subject isn't worthy of an article, but on the abhorrent state it is currently in. bahamut0013^words _deeds
Redirect: I agree with Nick's rationale. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:32, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian products with protected designation of origin

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; the author has requested the article be deleted via wp:G7. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Pascotto

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

speedy declined; copy of her online resume WP:N, WP:NOT Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inline cites

There appear to be none that relate directly to the subect, but rather to the organisation, (TPRF), a subject which has itself been declared non-notable. If none are forthcoming I would pronounce the subject not notable. Rumiton (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If declared non-notable, why do these exist?:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prem_Rawat_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat

Dou9las (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your first link is to the German Wikipedia, which is a completely different thing to this, the English one. Your second is to the English article about Prem Rawat himself. He is definitely notable, even if primarily for his impact on western countries prior to 1980. Rumiton (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google News search turns up nothing but self-authored press releases. The article does not meet WP:RS or WP:BIO requirements. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I searched the Proquest newspaper archive and got the same results as Regent of the Seatopians - just press releases. Further, the article, a direct copy of the online resume, doesn't make any assertion of notability. Merely heading a foundation isn't sufficient even if the foundation itself is notable. Finally, the editor who created it says that he "works for and represents" the subject, for what that's worth.[28] Will Beback talk 00:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all above reasons. Rumiton (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rumiton, points taken, was just saying that if notable to German WikiPedia, then it should have a fighting chance to be considered notable on English WP.

Will - my point in mentioning that I work for Ms. Pascotto was that we had permission to use her material on a WP page. However, my purpose for creating the page about her is that I feel her career is notable. There is no commercial or other "ulterior motive" behind creation of the page. I am currently researching material and citations that will satisfy WikiPedia's criteria for General Notability Guidelines and will update my original article and this discussion when I have that information. Dou9las (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no connection between the different language versions of Wikipedia, and this is due to the way each has evolved with different rules, and also to the Wikipedia definition of notability. Notability has nothing to do with whatever great things a person may have done, it stems purely from the amount of notice that has been taken of the subject preferably in the language of the article. This notice is ideally from academic sources, university publications, researchers, etc but can also be from high quality magazines, newspapers and documentaries, sources with a good reputation for fact checking. (BTW, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source.) An individual cannot post their own CV and expect it to be accepted as a biography. And whatever you (or I) might feel about the subject's notabilty has no bearing at all. It is all to do with what reputable sources feel, and what they have written. If you think for a moment you will see why this must be the case for an encyclopedia to have any credibility at all. So I say again, if you have reputable sources for the notability of this subject, please post them here. That is the only way to proceed. I hope this has helped. Rumiton (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rumiton - thank you for the additional information and clarification. Also, as a relatively inexperienced Wikipedia editor, I did not realize that working for Linda created a conflict of interest with respect to the terms and conditions of publishing pages here.

I have deleted the contents of the article, however I am unsure if there is a formal procedure for completely deleting the associated page created. Please advise. Dou9las (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've added the code snippets for "delete" and "delete | reason" to the top of the article. Please advise if I need to take further action to facilitate deleting this page. Dou9las (talk) 18:09, 9 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 talk 08:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Francis Xavier Montmorency

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

The article fails to make a case against WP:ORG and primary schools are not automatically notable (per WP:OUTCOMES). PROD rapidly deleted without explanation, so raising for wider discussion (the article may also be a copyvio of http://www.sfxmontmorency.catholic.edu.au/ which I only noticed after raising this AFD). Fæ (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability in Wikipedia terms. I think the author may have genuinely misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia, which is not intended to duplicate or substitute for a school or parish website, whether or not copyright considerations apply. AJHingston (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of interest from reliable sources. Take away the copyvio from the school's "Our School" page and there is nothing left worth saving. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a primary school is only notable if it meets WP:ORG. This does not. Simply copy and pasting does not make an article. LibStar (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Montmorency, Victoria. This is a local primary school, with an article derived from its own website, and a perspective so provincial that the website doesn't bother to tell where Montmorency is. I found no sources to suggest notability. --Orlady (talk) 04:55, 9 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 talk 08:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Nardiello

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

contested PROD - no evidence for claimed professional match for WBA - fails WP:NFOOTY Zanoni (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Zanoni (talk) 09:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I remember he had a trial with us a few years ago, but he wasn't offered a contract. Argyle 4 Life^talk 08:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even close to being notable. – Pee Jay 14:38, 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 delete. CSD G11. this isn't an article, it's adcopy. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectus Group

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

The only citation is to the company's website so there is no indication that this company is notable. The page reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. —Ute in DC (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unambiguous advertising: From its humble launch in 2007 the central characteristic of the company has been a drive to innovate and to create value from technology. This is enabled by a corporate culture in which there is a minimal hierarchy, and in which project teams are built based on the right fitment. Mr. Jabberjee? Is that you? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:52, 8 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 talk 08:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Exchange Tax

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Tagged since March - June 2010, but nothing that shows notability has been added. Appears to be original research. Sjö (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be somebody's proposal for a specific tax which even quotes a particular rate, and is not approriately sourced or demonstrating the required notability. There is a place in Wikipedia for articles on forms of taxation, and transaction taxes are clearly notable as any lookup of Tobin tax will show. It would be useful to have a general article on the topic which could cite particular proposals of which UET might be one, but this article seems to fall between two stools and it would need to be very different in form. AJHingston (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lengthy essay on a self-created idea. This is the sort of "Original Research" which is out of bounds at WP, and with good reason. Carrite (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:OR and WP:GNG. I found ZERO hits at Google News and likewise at Google Scholar. Nobody seriously has ever discussed it, much less done any research on the topic, outside of this very article! Actually, outside of a Huffington Post blog, I can't find any independent and reliable sources about this idea. It is thus the definition of an idea before its time. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 7 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. A7 Closedmouth (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Ass F.C.

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the notability guidelines of WP:GNG or WP:ORG. A7 contested by another editor. VQuakr (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jared Preston (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as A7 - This article is only about two members in a football club. It even calls itself an amateur club and the under dogs. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 08:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - User:Porchcrop was the editor that contested the A7 before, so I would support this being treated as an uncontested A7 unless someone disagrees. VQuakr (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this puppy. Although the editor has expanded the article to include more playmates and removed indication that they play and study together at their school, the article offers no credible indication of significance or importance and should be deleted according to the A7 criteria for speedy deletion. Cind.amuse 08:54, 5 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 Stephen per CSD A7.[29] (procedural closure) Swarm ^X 13:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah (rapper)

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

Delete. A7 CSD tag removed because "article not about band, about a person. Doesn't meet any criteria for A7." Oy vey. Notability is not established per WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Cind.amuse 07:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much of the article's content appears to be correct, although it looks like Old Boy is a mixtape. Given the early stage in his career, significant coverage in reliable sources looks the only way to establish notability here, and it doesn't seem to exist.--Michig (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. There is no credible indication of notability per WP:BAND, so A7 applies here. --bonadea contributions talk 09:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No indication of significance per WP:BAND. Swarm ^X 10:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've restored the CSD tag because the rationale given to remove it, quite frankly, didn't make sense. Swarm ^X 10:55, 6 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 G11 deleted by User:Athaenara. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 19:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca's Collection

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

Delete. Lack of notability and blatantly promotional in nature. CSD tag removed. Lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 07:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is merely an advertisement for a rather obscure store. It reads like an advertising brochure. Rotmo (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatantly promotional in nature, obviously meets the CSD and I have no idea why the tag was removed. I won't re-add the tag but if an admin can get around to speedy'ing this (per {{db-spam}}) we could save a whole week's worth of unnecessary 'process'. Swarm ^X 09:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - blatant promotion. --bonadea contributions talk 09:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Lovetinkle (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per criterion G11. VQuakr (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Clearly promotional. I restored the CSD G11 tag, as the rationale to remove it made no sense. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 16:34, 5 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth B. Marlin

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

Does not meet notability criteria. Although mentioned in several articles, has not been the subject of any non-trivial, third-party, reliable sources. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I believe this investment banker may be notable, the current article is largely a copyright violation of his executive profile on Bloomberg Businessweek. Cullen328 (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the position is notable , and there are references to support it. We normally do accept business executives at this level as notable, based if necessary on common sense. In this field there is normally not substantial independent bios except for the most famous, so we accept well-supported indications of being notable within their profession. The GNG as written is applicable perhaps to public performers, but not to every type of article. To see the available material, use the page history--I just removed the bulk of the text because it was indeed a copyvio, but it can undoubtedly be rewritten. fwiw, I deleted articles for two of the lower level executives of the firm, written by the same person in the same style, because I judged them entirely promotional, and not worth the rewriting, because there wouldn't be a realistic chance of accepting them as notable . DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it was pointed out to me on my talk p. that the first sentence was also a copyvio. I rewrote it more briefly--it was in any case 50% jargon, a good illustration of why PR copy does not make an acceptable Wikipedia article, even should it gets licensed. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 20 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) 01:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources don't show any indication of notability! Perchloric (talk) 16:22, 26 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant achievement by the subject that would establish notability. I am sure he is fine gentleman, but in the end he is, like most of us, a person with a job. Rotmo (talk) 08:20, 5 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 Polytechnic University of the Philippines. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.U.P. College of Economics, Finance, and Politics

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

This article could qualify for deletion under CSD a-7, A prod was in place yet twice removed. Per request in edit summary, discussion is now here. In the current state, this article is at best a work in progress, and should be moved to a user space until and if it meets inclusion criteria. My76 Strat 03:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No indication of notability. Colleges withing larger universities are not inherently notable. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. This is a subdivision of a university; as such, it can be legitimately covered in the university article. There isn't enough content in this stub to justify the separate page. --Orlady (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. as per above Alan - talk 00:05, 8 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. This is a close one. But at the end of the day, the combination of BLP and notability issues makes this result in "delete." The assertion that disputed claims are as "interesting" and "widely reported" as undisputed ones is not supported by evidence. The Robert Young quote is not really enough to establish the notability of the concept. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of disputed supercentenarian claimants

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

Seems like a BLP minefield with no great benefit or purpose. Many are non-notable people without bios. Even those with bios, are often private people, with a wee bit of transitory notice for the singular issue of their age. And what is the magical significance of 110? Even if this could be fixed, it won't be maintained properly. Even if it's maintained properly, what's the benefit of it? Rob (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This is indeed a BLP minefield with little to no benefit.Griswaldo (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Rob (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well-stated nomination. And we should consider removing supercentenarian as well. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and only weak, because it's probably covered elsewhere in our 110 articles about people who have reached the age of 110. Keep, however, because it's well-sourced, a rare quality in a Wikipedia article. If not, then remove the unsourced or questionably sourced content. I doubt that a nomination of supercentenarian will go far. Regarding comments about deleting the whole thing because it's a "BLP minefield", the "L" stands for "living", and only the 30 or so persons listed at the top are alive. I tend to agree that WP:BLP would apply to the living ones-- the inclusion of their names on the list is a statement that they are liars; worse yet, the accusations seem to come from websites rather than published sources. Not all of this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Opinions that the whole thing is of no benefit are just that, opinions. Mandsford 23:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Agree with HW, as well. Longevity is a WP:WALLEDGARDEN and the ArbCom decision on the topic seems to have motivated more, rather than less, WP:OWN edits. I'm heartened to see the more-experienced editors forseen by the ArbCom decision taking an interest. Deleting this most egregious of the non-compliant articles, with its multiple WP:BLP issues, would be a good place to start to bring longevity articles into compliance with the basic wikipedia collaborative editing paradigm, and help experts learn where their input is helpful, and where their valuable time and energy might better be spent on the new Wikia project AMK has started, and/or Citizendium, which more closely fits their editorial style and norms. David in DC (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disputed claims of longevity are as interesting as the undisputed ones, are as widely reported and therefore as notable, verifiable and as reliably sourced. So keep. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This article shows individuals that a large number of people who claim to be 110 or older, generally 115 or more, are "99% false [115+ claimants]," according to Robert Young, Senior Claims Investigator. Little do you guys know that this is an important article. Less people will fall for the 130-year-old Georgian woman, for example, whom a lot of people say that she is the oldest in the world. Though, there has been no sources online mentioning a younger age (including WOP). Though I won't be able to post any more of them here, I still agree that it is a great link, in my opinion. It will always remain that way. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole concept of supercentenarian, specifically when applied to an article like this, is an arbitrary one. Why is, say for example, someone who is actually 102 claiming to be 111 a notable piece of information while, say for example, someone who is actually 102 claiming to be 109 not a notable piece of information? A large amount of the article is poorly sourced to self-published sources in addition. O Fenian (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with the exception of families who've got such 'disputed' claiments, few people are concerned about such things. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That must be why the media never reports them. :-) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 14:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only true WALLEDGARDEN article on Wikipedia is Hortus conclusus. Generally the term is simply used by non-afficionados of something (say, perhaps you don't like WP:ROYALTY or Babylon 5) as a way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In which case I have the perfect counterargument: WP:ILIKEIT. S B H arris 00:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I witnessed several accounts on articles, such as List of living supercentenarians or List of oldest living people by nation, where the WOP sources were removed, but the case still remained. That would be the better route here for this article. (Gosh for bid) let's remove all WOP sources on here to make you all happy and to wait until the list is updated by Dr. Coles, or Robert Young. Many articles on Wikipedia have unsourced material that remain for months at a time. There is no need to jump the gun and remove the article. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:43, 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 per WP:SNOW Mandsford 22:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Perfect Numbers

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

Non-notable intersection of two unrelated integer sequences, one of which is base-dependent and the other not. Prod contested by creator. The article mentions the first 3 numbers which are both a happy number and perfect number. Several others of the 47 known perfect numbers at List of perfect numbers are also happy numbers (starting with the 11th with Mersenne exponent 107 and 65 digits), but it seems nobody has bothered to test for this intersection. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't think there is anything special about being both a happy number and a perfect number. JIP | Talk 07:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that one is base-dependent and the other not tells me that where the two intersect has no deep mathematical meaning. Guy Macon (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources to indicate that this is a notable concept or that the term "happy perfect numbers" has been used to describe these numbers; good reasons (given above) to assume that such sources do not exist; not even listed at OEIS. So just a random intersection of two unrelated sets of integers. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And they are all Even! :) Nageh (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable intersection. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a typical person should be able to realize that "A Happy Perfect number is a number that is both a Happy Number and a Perfect Number." No need for a Wikipedia page to tell them that. "Pepper " 21:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although being in OEIS is not a sufficient condition for notability of an integer sequence, I think it's almost surely a necessary one. Regardless, the real problem is the unavailability of published sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 6 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) 03:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Police Department Mental Evaluation Unit

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

This article somehow acquired a hangon tag without being nominated for speedy deletion, catching my attention. Surprised to see an 'advertisement' tag on the article, I looked it over - and I have to agree; the page looks very much like a puff piece. I'm not seeing anything here that couldn't be covered in a few lines in Los Angeles Police Department - which doesn't even link to this page. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but revise the article. Somewhat to my surprise, I concluded that this unit of the police department has independent notability and relevance beyond the parent police department. Among other things, it seems to be considered a model for how law enforcement agencies should deal with people with mental illness. It looks to me like the article was originally created several years ago when the unit got widespread public attention (for example, this article in Newsweek) for intervening with Britney Spears. Some time since then, the article was greatly expanded (and some of the content that indicated notability was removed) by persons whose primary aim was advertising. Much repair and trimming are needed to find the baby in the advertising bathwater, but I believe there is an actual baby in there. --Orlady (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up per Orlady. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 20:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Rewrite - Sufficient coverage from secondary and tertiary sources given in article for its subject to pass WP:GNG. Content of article needs improvement to make it more encyclopedic. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:07, 7 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) 03:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nava–Martini–Thiene syndrome

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

Not Notable Guy Macon (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note

While researching the notability of this article, I ran across the following:

http://digilander.libero.it/martini_syndrome/ (note email address: bortolo.martini [at] gmail.com)

http://www.angelfire.com/mb/bortolomartini/STSegmentElevation.html (various articles by Andrea Nava, Bortolo Martini and Gaetano Thiene)

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindrome_di_Brugada#Bibliografia (Italian Wikipedia page, Martini B, Nava A listed in the Bibliografia)

Also of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.186.97.114

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bmartini

Guy Macon (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC) (proponent)[reply]

Delete

Basically this is a claim that Brugada syndrome was discovered before Brugada discovered it and thus should be called Nava–Martini–Thiene syndrome. The only source for these claims appears to be non-peer-reviewed writings of Andrea Nava, Bortolo Martini and/or Gaetano Thiene, and it is likely that Bortolo Martini is the author of this Wikipedia page. Guy Macon (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC) (proponent)[reply]

Delete - per the research done and the points raised by Guy Macon. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No point in a redirect since the syndrome does not appear to be known by this name, but it might merit a footnote at Brugada syndrome. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 9 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) 03:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi-Change the Game ads

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

Although it generates quite a few ghits, I just can't find enough significant coverage in reliable sources to prove that this series of advertisements are notable. Jenks24 (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly trivial advertising campaign with no significant coverage beyond sponsored ads. Nev1 (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why on earth speedy deletion was turned down, as this is entirely uncyclopedic, unreferenced and rather rubbish. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes it is, but none of those are speedy deletion criteria, which are very strict. It was twice put up for A1, but that's incorrect because the context of the article can be determined. Jenks24 (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some Pepsi-Cola ad campaigns, such as for instance the Pepsi Generation, have been subjects of third party commentary that establishes them as having cultural or technical significance. No such showing is made here, although it's possible it does have that kind of significance where these ads run. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:30, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Lieberman

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

WP:BLP1E: person only notable for one event, in this case a recent controversy relating to comments she made in an interview on Fox News. I can't find sufficient coverage of her in reliable sources outside of that context to suggest that she passes the general notability guideline. We did have an article on her before that controversy (see this version), but looking at it then only makes this person's lack of notability more obvious. Robofish (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to Robofish for notifying me of this AfD. She's the author of multiple books from established publishers, the author of a number of scholarly papers, a faculty member at a major university, and a frequent television pundit. All that adds up to enough notability to take this past a case of BLP1E. Gamaliel (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please name the books. Of the 3 listed in the article, 1 is from an established publisher. This is not a Delete !vote, as there may be other reasons why she is notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Amazon.com, Bad Boys and Bad Girls are from Signet Books and have been reviewed in standard publications. Lieberman is also a contributing editor to Cosmopolitan, according to Amazon. Gamaliel (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are "one event" situations which shouldn't be in Wikipeda: Barney Smith was locked in a refrigerator for a record 17 days... etc. — and then there are single "events" which impact the social landscape. Clearly, even a cursory glance at the enormous mass of writing and commentary generated by Lieberman's expression of a "violent video games increase levels of rape" thesis indicates that we have a public figure worthy of encyclopedic biography here. "Dr. Carole's" website LINK indicates that she is a self-described "media psychiatrist" and includes far more detail on other television appearances as an "expert" in this or that than a single appearance on Fox News. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - Honestly, the only reliable source in it so far is the Wired article; Reason isn't IMHO, and the others are not either. I looked at Google News and found a few more, but all of them are either completely unreliable or press releases. She is one of those fringe pop-psychologists who is given far too much press today. We are slouching towards Jerusalem, while she is barely notable. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearian. I know this a complete digression and I apologize in advance, but could you explain the meaning of the phrase "slouching towards Jerusalem"? I'm not familiar with that and I would guess there are others here that are similarly unaware. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I've never heard it before... A misquote from a 1921 Yeats poem, it would seem... Carrite (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the obscure cultural reference, especially since it's misquoted! Never mind .... LOL. Bearian (talk) 23:40, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewall Magazine

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

non notable publication WuhWuzDat 06:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11. This is clearly pure spam. RichardOSmith (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 26 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) 01:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment A speedy deletion request for this article has been declined. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 5 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) 03:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Elementary Waves

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

Stub article about a little-known fringe physics theory. I initially cleaned out a bunch of non-reliable source citations to postings on personal web sites and discussion forums. After doing this I realized that this left little beyond the works of the theory's author and some external links to sites promoting the theory. My initial searching turned up nothing useful. I'm not an expert on either quantum physics or fringe science, so perhaps there is more to be found, but given that the page has been tagged for notability since July, I'm doubtful. RL0919 (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original author of the article has posted a somewhat lengthy reply on his user talk page and on the article talk page. To avoid repetition, I have replied to him there and asked him to bring any further arguments against deletion here. --RL0919 (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—There are a few independent scholarly mentions of Professor Little's approach: Kurakin (2005); Kurakin, Malinetskii and Bloom (2005); Boyd (2010). However, I couldn't find any mention in a peer reviewed journal other than the original work by Dr. Little. There was a follow-up talk about the "Innsbruck experiment".[30]—RJH (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move/rename this version to Lewis Earl Little (currently a redirect page).Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 23:32, 28 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) 01:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move/rename As suggested by Hodja Nasreddin above. Guy Macon (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient notability is shown. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fringe, for all it looks like. See here and here. Almost all other links seem to be articles or books written by Little. Nageh (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.

The author of this page (See User talk:Jeffrey Boyd) says:

"I am submitting scholarly articles to scholarly physics journals, and sooner or later an article will be published."

"...our research team is developing TEW to a more robust theory, but I can't prove that to Wikipedia's satisfaction because we have not yet published"

"Give us another two years then revisit the question of deletion (by then more will be in print)"

Considering WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, the article should be deleted, and the author would then be welcome to create it again when and if he gets published and can show that he meets Wikipedia's standards for notability and verifiability. Guy Macon (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whole forests have been destroyed to submit articles that claim to refute Quantum mechanics, mine included. When this theory gets published in either a scholarly journal, or gets in the news as a fringe theory, then it will be notable enough in either case for inclusion in Wikipedia. If this were provable, it would make the headlines of every major newspaper. Until then, it's not notable. An incomplete theory would also likely be unready for inclusion. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 7 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Silver

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

I don't see any notability. Maybe creator NYCsDancer (talk · contribs) can explain (and name sources, and wikify, and...) --bender235 (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 26 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) 00:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After looking for reliable sources providing signficant coverage, I find little save that he attempted to file a lawsuit once. [31] Appears, lacking more sources, to fail GNG and WP:ENT --joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found the fact that there is no wikilink to the related article Electric Slide peculiar. I thought perhaps that article would have some references that could be used in this article. But Electric Slide is its own can of worms. Felt I ought to call attention to the fact that the article exists. Tkotc (talk) 09:10, 6 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 Commission. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commissioning

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

Not just a dicdef, but an unclear uncited dicdef. I've never seen the term used in this sense, so I think this may be a UK not US usage, in which case it should at least say so. Conceivably it could be expanded into an article--almost anything can--, although I do not see how. If someone can do so or even suggest how, I will withdraw this. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, this is a valid UK usage. But as a dictionary definition it is pretty inept, and fails on WP:DICTIONARY. The subject is notable, but I agree that if it is to become a useful article it might be better not to start from here. AJHingston (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the term probably comes from the commissioning of a warship, ie bringing it into service, a major exercise including manning, storing, etc. Then extended by analogy to things such as hospitals (if that helps). AJHingston (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Commission (disambiguation), the disambiguation page is the proper place to point this, it doesn't need an article, since it is a dictdef. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Commission which is a dab page listing most of the possible meanings. The current version is not especially a UK usage. In the UK, the term would cover usages such as Book commissioning and acquisition or Commissioning and purchasing. The word generally means to enter into a commitment and this can occur at various stages of an enterprise from ordering to acceptance. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it can have that variety of meanings. I don't think that the present disambiguation page for commission does cover them properly, though. To take the single example of the National Health Service in England, as well as the well established usage of hospital commissioning as the process of bringing the buildings into operation at the end of construction, it is now being used in a quite different sense when speaking of commissioning health care when it is concerned with identifying needs and making sure they are met, and therefore much like a publisher commissioning a book. I think that sense is currently missing. Perhaps you should add it. AJHingston (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may be an analogous process in publishing, but there I think the word "commissioning" is used for an event that comes much earlier in the game. —Tamfang (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. If the dab page lacks the sense in question, add to it. —Tamfang (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 11:19, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gyula Vikidál

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

Unsourced biography of a living person, notability is dubious. bender235 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was truly dreadful. I fixed up the text a bit (still needs more), but he seems to be very well known in Hungary and has sung leading roles in several musicals. He's not just a rock singer. In Hungarian, names are in the reverse order. If you search under "Vikidál Gyula", you get a lot of coverage. This is just the coverage of him in Népszabadság, a major Hungarian newspaper. Voceditenore (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've asked WikiProject Hungary if there's someone there who can read Hungarian and can evaluate the references and sources. I can only do it via Google translations, which is not ideal. Voceditenore (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 05:43, 1 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) 00:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Voceditenore. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, significant sources appear available. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:22, 6 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veriguide

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

Subject appears to be non-notable and article seems to be an advertisement ElKevbo (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the page. Thank you for your opinion ElKevbo. This is certainly not meant to be an advertisement. There's no exchange of interest between me and this software.

I am setting up this page solely to increase the awareness of plagarism and academic honestly among students in Hong Kong, and also the whole world, should be of paramount importance.

This page allows students to get more information about plagarism detection tools, especially those being employed by many tertiary institutions in Hong Kong currently. Ugebgroup8 (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2011 (HK time) — Ugebgroup8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As far I know, Veriguide is a freeware developed by CUHK. Indeed, it is not dedicated for the internal use of CUHK only. Universities like the Open University of Hong Kong, Peking University has adopted this software as a plagarism detection device. --Andrew Powner (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2011 (HK time) — Andrew Powner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

People may have the misunderstanding that this 'Veriguide' is similar to the commercial product 'Verisign' (a product about digital signature). This software is a plagarism freeware. I don't see any point claiming this article to be an advertisement.--Murakami Junji (talk) 19:4, 28 February 2011 (HK time) — Murakami Junji (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I believe that this page is of great value for university students, as least for those in Hong Kong. It gives information for students who have to use this system for their assignments. I can't see the point of deleting this page for several reasons. First, this system is actually not a commercial product for sale, but instead it is a system to serve students in Hong Kong. Second, for students who have to submit their assignments via this system, this page could provide them with brief information so that they know why they have to let their assignments passing through this system. And third, this page could actually promote academic honesty, and people could understand the use of this kind of system as stated in the page. So I guess this page is still of great value to be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyziloc (talk • contribs) 15:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Zyziloc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a piece of software of note only within one institution. The same could be said of Cusis (contributed the previous day by a very similarly-named account name) which I've flagged for notability. (I note also that 3 of the 4 above opinions in this AfD made exactly the same spelling mistake.) AllyD (talk) 23:07, 5 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) 03:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fidelio Supermarket

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

Defunct supermarket chain. Makes no claims to notability, or as to why it should exist as a stand-alone article separate from Supermarkets in Romania. Seems to fail WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 19:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any reliable secondary sources to establish notability; would be nice, however, if somebody who spoke Romanian could take a look at this because any mentions are bound to be in Romanian. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 07:03, 2 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) 00:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising, doesn't get independent coverage. Dahn (talk) 16:00, 9 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/merge arguments do not really provide a defense of this article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main opponents of A.C. Milan

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

Although I'm a big AC Milan fan, I see no point in having such an article. By the way, it ~~does not even specify~~ uses arbitrary inclusion criteria and it's ~~completely unsourced~~ poorly sourced. Luxic (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Luxic (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Luxic (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both the source (The "Panini" almanac) and the inclusion criteria (100+) are clearly cited. Users should work to expand wikipedia, not to destroy it (expecially on Saturday nights... ;-) )--Akrothiri (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I've reworded the rationale. Oh, and just to let you know, sometimes deletion is way more constructive than expansion. On any day of the week. Luxic (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - AC Milan's main rivalry is probably their local one with Inter - which is covered in a seperate article, Derby della Madonnina. No need for this indiscriminate list. Giant Snowman 21:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Rename Seems like there is a lot of good info but it needs a diffrent title. BUC (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to A.C. Milan league record by opponent. Potentially useful article if expanded along the lines of Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent. At the moment the article suffers for the fact it picks out some teams (why those and not others?). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 04:46, 2 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) 00:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inherently subjective - rivalries are either fixed for a long time AC vs Inter, Rangers vs Celtic, Barcelona vs Real Madrid etc or are non-notable. Other than Inter, key rivalries can be recorded in a line at most in the AC Milan page. MLA (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Precendent that would be set if this were to be kept would lead to potetially thousands of articles of "Main opponents of X" for every single football team with an article on wikipedia. At best, merge some of the info into AC Milan if the info isn't already there. Delusion23 (talk) 00:35, 8 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. Article was deleted by Cirt but he forgot to close the AFD. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Green (lawyer)

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

Notability concerns, even some verifiability issues. The commonality of the name makes source-finding difficult, there are certainly lawyers in the US and Canada I was able to discover with the same name, but none from London. Additional eyes welcome, though, more than happy to withdraw if notability can be shown through significant coverage by reliable, secondary sources. Possibly a hoax, as he doesn't seem to be listed as QC [32] or [33] or [34]. Unsourced BLP for 5 1/2 years. j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 21:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I have tracked Brian Green down and although his description on the Wilberforce Chambers website cannot be used as a source it does establish that the article is not a hoax. Nevertheless, there are considerable problems with this Wiki entry. For example it describes him as a leading member of the Law Society, but he is a barrister. He is said to be Bar representative on the Revenue Law Committee of the Law Society, Capital Taxes sub-committee - plausable, but the Law Society page for the present comittee lists a Martin Green, who is not said to be a barrister so at best the article is out of date. I would vote for deletion if Brian Green's own page did not make legitimate claims to notability, that in July 2008 Brian was featured as one of the Top 50 lawyers in the UK by The Sunday Times, in July 2009, Brian featured as Lawyer of the Week in The Times and at The Lawyer Awards in June 2010 Brian was singled out as "outstanding" and as a "tour de force in pensions and private client law". So reluctantly, I have to come down to voting for clean-up and keep if those claims can be verified. AJHingston (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the article is now written there are no legitimate claims of notability. AJHingston points out some potential claims of notability but as we stand now we can not verify those claims from any sources independent of the subject. If reliable sources independent of the subject that can verify these claims surface I will certainly reconsider my !vote. J04n(talk page) 12:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I am not sure he passes my standards for notability of attorneys. I have to look into that, and possibly amend them. QC and tenured lectureship certainly count, but I'm not sure it is enough. If we can not verify the claims therein, then he fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP in any case. It is one thing to plead a case, but another entirely different thing to prove it. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 28 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) 00:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 18:17, 5 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trivikram Srinivas

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

I don't think this one meets WP:CREATIVE. bender235 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as multiple wins and nominations of Nandi Awards, quite prominent and notable in India, meet the requirements of WP:ANYBIO. Also, a g-news search shows his meeting WP:GNG as well. While yes, the article has issues, in this case such are best addressed through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add some more sources to the article, particular for his prominence in India? --bender235 (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, new editor User:DoBacchoKiMaa does/did not quite understand style, tone, or ref format.[35] But as these are addressable issues, article format is being corrected and sources are being added.[36] Just takes a little time and care. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Clearly meets GNG. If sources are out there, but not reflected in an article, that is not reason to nom it for AfD (per wp:before). Alternatives to AfD in such circumstances that are suggested by the guideline in such circumstances are to start a discussion on the article's talk page and/or project page, but not to bring it to AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:01, 1 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) 00:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per WP:GNG --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 18:14, 5 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 userfy to User:2829VC/Drug Policy Review Group. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Policy Review Group

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

Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article and a couple of others seem to have been written by User:2829VC, as mostly seems to be characterised by excessive references to "Heroin Addiction, Care and Control: The British System" by H. B. Spear aka Bing Spear. There probably is useful information in these articles but I find it difficult to work out exactly what these edits are meant to achieve. Is there someone in Wikiproject Drugs who can salvage these articles. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More than a couple of others! There was been virtually no coverage of the history of drug addiction treatment in this country in Wikipedia!, and the history is the reason why it is in the state it is in. This book is written by a very well know authority on exactly why it happened. I intend to write an article on him and one of two other people at the time and other institutions which haven't been covered. I have some valuable information which I haven't used yet. I'm a member, FWIW, of the Drug Policy Wiki and what I'm trying to do is listed there. The particular article is not very important to what i'm doing but they produced some reports which i've linked to the Legalise Cannabis wiki. 2829 VC 13:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've done a quick google search for HB Spear and it looks like he would meet notability quite comfortably. However, I can find very little coverage for the Drug Policy Review Group, and it seems that its biggest claim to notability by far is its association with a notable individual. Therefore, I can think of two possible ways forwards for this article: either redirect it to an article of H.B. Spear as soon as there is one and include the information in that article; or expand it if, and only if, coverage can be found in third-party sources to write about it. However, as it stands the article has very little context. Therefore, I suggest we Userfy this article until we can find a better home for the information. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what userfy means please, it's not in wikipedia AFAICT. You've seen the cannabis linked stuff I presume. I'm actually going to ring them on Monday and find out wehere their reports have been going, I can't imagine their EEC funding is being paid for nothing. I hope you also looked at my work at the Drug Policy wiki? 2829 VC 14:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC) 2829 VC 14:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I say 'my work' it does sound a bit pretentious, what I mean is the section I have expanded in the uk section? 2829 VC 14:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "userfy", Chris means put it in your userspace, your sandbox. BTW, we generally call them articles, not wikis. A wiki is an entire website, of which Wikipedia is one example. :) LadyofShalott 14:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, thanks. I thought it might mean that. Thanks for your other correction as well, I'm afraid I'm new here :-) 2829 VC 18:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here, "userfy" means "move it to (say) User:2829VC/Drug Policy Review Group and work on it there". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks, my sand box, I'm working on a couple of articles, there at the moment. 2829 VC 02:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not averse to putting it in my sandbox if people still have objection to it? I could include it in a bing spear article. The only link which is used AFAICT is from the legalize cannabis article and the Drug Policy Revue Group. If someone could notify me of the decision, I can move it myself, I think 2829 VC 08:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you yourself are happy for the article to be deleted from the mainspace and recreated in your user space, we can close this debate now. I suggest that Wikiproject Drugs people would be in the best position to help you with the H B Spear article. Failing that, I'm happy to help you myself, because I'm pretty sure that article would pass notability and could incorporate all of the information in the Drug Policy Review Group. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:34, 1 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) 00:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable pressure group. MLA (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy this draft until it can be improved or content can be merged to a suitable place, such as H.B. Spear. LadyofShalott 21:28, 6 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. This AfD is focused on whether the coverage is sufficient, and there does not appear to be an agreement on this issue. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darfield Upperwood Primary School

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

I'm not sure that the conclusions reached in the old AFD discussion still holds good. UK primary schools (i.e. elementary schools) are generally considered non-notable, and this doesn't seem to be a particularly exceptional case. The bulk of the article material is derived from official data and inspection reports; the "notability" argument was based on Beacon status, a passing mention in a parliamentary debate, and some local press coverage for a minor financial scandal.

"Beacon School" status was abolished years ago; moreover this applied to very many schools. The highest UK award is now to be an "OFSTED Outstanding" school, and thousands of schools fulfil this criterion. Nor does the mention of the school's name in parliament seem to hold much weight - there was no substantive discussion about the school in parliament, it was basically just namechecked. This is a common occurrence in British parliamentary debates; substantive debate about a particular school is rarer but does happen e.g. for Bishops Park College at [37], [38], [39] (apologies that I couldn't find section links - but search the documents for "Bishops Park")

I'm not convinced the financial scandal press coverage adds much weight either. My local and regional press regularly runs stories on a similar scale e.g. recently similar amounts of money were involved in scandals relating to a financial adviser alleged to be incompetent or crooked, and a landlord using public money to provide substandard accommodation to the vulnerable. They each got a sequence of news reports over several months; occasionally stories like this get picked up for a small piece in the national media. But a "scandal" on this scale doesn't really seem encyclopedically notable; would anyone argue that the landlord or the financial adviser I mentioned, or their companies, should receive an article based on the press coverage they received? There's more to notability than a couple of non-trivial local press mentions - otherwise almost every school principal, and many long-serving school-teachers who get coverage on their retirements, would have articles here!

I'm not convinced that it's reasonable to expect us to keep up-to-date and accurate an entry about a pretty quotidian local school catering for 260 4-11 year olds. This isn't a big name school where internal changes will come to more widespread public attention (unlike British prep schools like the Dragon School which cover a similar age bracket); normally material about schools of this type and age range is covered briefly at article for the settlement covered, in this case Darfield, South Yorkshire. TheGrappler (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems 1 What was the proportion of schools that had Beacon status--as you know, the general rule is once notable, always notable. 2 In the US, mention of something in the Congressional Record -- whether it was actually said on the floor in Congress or added afterwards-- counts for almost nothing. I'm not sure about the status in the UK. I'd guess a formal Question is worth mentioning, and possibly a comment from the floor much less so. Looking at the cited page in Hansard, it was the final concluding statement in a major Government presentation, & I think worth quoting, but not by itself a proof of notability . 3 I agree the financial irregularities are relatively unimportant. Unfortunately, they are the sort of thing that gets into newspapers. Considering the emphasis we put on the GNG, I can understand people using them. In this case they might be right--the references show that the inquiry became a national issue. But at the very least, I would not include the name of the principal in this context--it's undue emphasis a/c BLP. 4 The comment on maintaining standards is relevant. The text in the article about how outstanding the school is , unfortunately no longer applies, as the article's contents itself show. 5 More than I used to, I am concerned with their being suitable article for beginners to improve and to start. Secondary school articles are a good place for this, but many contributors start even earlier and have done good work in the past. If we take account how difficult an article is to maintain, a question about which I am not at all sure, perhaps we should consider this also. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG - I considered asking your advice before renominating this article, but didn't save my edit on your talk page. I might have managed to make a stronger nomination if I'd consulted you first!

1. We're not talking about being in the handful of top schools here. The pilot project had 75 schools [40], expanding to 550 schools in 2000 [41] and to 1000+ by 2001 [42]... after that, I believe the scheme continued to expand.

2. The parliamentary debate was about education in former coal-mining areas rather than e.g. the launch of a major new educational initiative, so even the speech wasn't all that important. I did once watch an education questions session in the British parliament; the schools minister appeared to be very peripapetic and answered questions from representatives around the House, reeling off examples of schools he'd visited in their areas and the good work they were doing! So I don't think much weight can be put on the parliamentary mention.

3. I don't think the inquiry was a truly "national issue". It never went above the level of the local school board (LEA), and didn't go to court. It received cursory coverage in the national press but it wasn't a big scale issue - it was more as "here's an example of the madness of how taxpayer's money is wasted". If that's enough to pass GNG then so do many small businesses etc, see next comment.

4/5. A school containing 260 under-11s is likely to be a hard article to maintain. New information e.g. Ofsted inspection, change of principal, league table position changes, changes in intake, mean that fairly regular updates would be required, in proportion to a small institution from which it's unlikely we will draw contributors. A comparable example would be e.g. a local accountancy firm with 260 customers, which once qualified for a fairly common national award, and which had a brief flirtation with financial scandal. One might be able to draft a sourced article on it, but maintenance would be very difficult. BLP considerations would also apply - as they do to this school article! - which is one reason I'm wary of keeping this, especially as it never got taken to court (this article still has a whiff of scandal and wrongdoing about it, but without the concreteness of a conviction). It seems to me that high school, popular culture, and geographic locality articles are a better bet for maintainable articles for new editors - although I am delighted you pay attention to the needs of new editors, something that we all need to learn to do more of! (I suspect there is a less "inclusionist" counterargument, that having naff, out-of-date articles may actually put potential new editors off. Doing minor corrections and updates is easier than a complete article overhaul! But I'm not sure how strong that argument is.) TheGrappler (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What puts potential new editors off is having people spending an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to destroy their work. We've already had an AFD for this article and it was kept. There is no reason for another discussion, especially an overlong trainwreck like this. Our deletion policy states that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." It indicates that blocking is an appropriate counter-measure. I endorse this sensible advice. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the previous nomination some years ago, a stronger consensus has emerged on notability of elementary schools. So this nomination is non-disruptive and certainly not blockworthy: it's testing how the law has changed rather than whether a different jury will give a different result. Unfortunately removing material puts off existing or previous editors, whereas including material we cannot maintain, makes us appear less trustworthy to readers (and, logically, potential editors). This is an age-old tension which defies simple solution, and the balancing act mandated by consensus can - and does - change. TheGrappler (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Primary schools should be merged into general articles about their school district in virtually all cases as a matter of generally-accepted Wikipedia policy. I think inclusionists and deletionists have reached an understanding here. This particular school does not pass my "exceptional" smell test. Carrite (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability does not expire. The school has been covered in detail by independent reliable sources such as this. We have coverage in national newspapers, educational books, &c. There is no case for deletion because being "quotidian" is not a policy-based argument - that's just subjective WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument isn't that the school has become less notable and "expired", but that community consensus on the inclusion hurdle for elementary schools has hardened. OFSTED reports can't be evidence of notability: even nursery schools (kindergartens) are OFSTED-inspected - surely no-one argues they are notable? I accept we can write a verifiable article on this school, but we can write a verifiable article on a kindergarten that operated for 3 years in the 1990s, had a few dozen kids and a government inspection report. We can write and verify one on any small company that brushed with financial scandal, got press coverage, but no court case. We can certainly do one on almost any case that does get to court! We can biographize every school principal who's done interviews with the local press (i.e. pretty much all of them). And yet we don't do those things - the hurdle for having an article has always been higher than "can we write a verifiable article"? How much higher seems pretty subjective and to vary from topic to topic. Of late, a clear consensus has emerged that elementary schools are non-notable unless they are somehow exceptional. An OFSTED report clearly can't show that. Other features of this school might point towards notability (beacon status, a minor "scandal" that blew itself out), but critical consideration of those claims makes them look less exceptional.
- That assessment is an attempt at (individually, objectively) determining whether this school meets the (community consensus, rather subjective) standard of inclusion for elementary schools. If community consensus had settled on a different standard, e.g. "elementary schools are generally notable unless they lack non-trivial secondary sources", then my assessment of the school as verifiable but quotidian wouldn't change, but my determination as to whether it passes the notability hurdle, would. TheGrappler (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge but merge properly. Most primary school articles on Wikipedia have little encyclopaedic information other than that they exist and a repeat of OFSTED information. This one has three claims to notability: the Beacon School award (that is the strongest); the citation by David Milliband as a good school (I know all MPs do that but this was David Milliband); and the minor story of financial irregularities. However, all of this could be condensed into a paragraph or two in the Darfield, South Yorkshire article without losing any of the encyclopaedic information. If the article stays, it needs editing to look less like a prospectus. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the notability does not get lost over time, and though the Beacon School status was abolished at some point does not lower the status of it when it existed. The articles is covered in reliable third party sources and so meets the WP:GNG for inclusion. Keith D (talk) 11:41, 8 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.