Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 12: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:01, 12 February 2011

< 11 February	13 February >

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Villaça

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

Non-notable writer. The references are all self-referential. Does not meet basic WP:BIO or WP:RS requirements. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I admit I can't read Portuguese, but my impression is that none of the hits at Google News [1] appear to be significant coverage ABOUT him. Thus, non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 19 February 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) 23:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto santofimio hernandez

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

Reads like a CV instead of an encyclopedia article. Falls far from the basic requirements of WP:BIO. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A former commercial atttache and now chicken-exporter hardly meets the criteria of WP:BIO. LordVetinari (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

</noinclude>

Delete, nonnotable businessman. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to be fit for Wiki. Japanese knotweed (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur with all above objections. Acabashi (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 15 February 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) 23:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Markdukas

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

Non-notable minor fictitious character. (PROD was removed by IP editor with no explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fictional character with no treatment in reliable sources. I considered a redirect to the film, I Love You, Man, but the character is so minor that he doesn't even rate a mention in that article. A perusal of the full cast at IMDB shows this character appearing squeezed between the characters "Wedding Photographer" and "Wedding Band Member #1". -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently a very minor character in one film. The claim that he has a cult following is unsourced, and even if it was sourced this should be a redirect to the film's article and still not be a stand-alone article. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:52, 16 February 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) 13:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nerva (artist)

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

Contested Prod, following which the biography now carries basic references. However there is no indication that the subject meets the notability guidelines for artists. AllyD (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes the general notability guideline with significant coverage in the independent reliable sources referenced in our article and the Estonian Wikipedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are these? The en article has 2 webpages (2003 and 2005) from the same Latvian website, possibly connected with a newspaper, or not, with an interview & a short story. That's not enough by a long stretch. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the link provided in those citations you will see that the source is Postimees, Estonia's highest circulation newspaper, and, as I said above, there are plenty more such reliable sources referenced in the Estonian Wikipedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:PROMO by single-purpose account User:Flasher T. --bender235 (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability; just local exhibitions. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability; just misc. exhibitions; no awards; missing significant coverage in the independent reliable sources referenced; etc. feydey (talk) 12:53, 23 February 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 Reintroduction. While there is certainly no consensus for deletion below, neither are there any rationales presented that the topic of "rewilding" is at all different from that described at Reintroduction or elsewhere. Because of this, Rewilding (Carnivores) likely should not have its own page, but can be covered with a few additions at Reintroduction. A merger should be discussed at Talk:Reintroduction, but is not required. lifebaka++ 18:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewilding (Carnivores)

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

This article does not by itself appear to be a notable topic. It did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion because it contains mergeable content, which might go to several other articles: Rewilding (conservation biology), Reintroduction, Save China's Tigers, and Translocation (wildlife conservation). Reviewing the Rewilding (conservation biology) article and its citations and searching for the term "rewilding" on Google Books, it is apparent that by far the most widespread use of the term "rewilding" is with the meaning indicated in the Rewilding (conservation biology) article, applying to the managed alteration of an entire ecosystem. The meaning promoted by the creator of the Rewilding (Carnivores) article, User:China's Tiger, referring to animals bred in captivity being released into the wild, appears to be primarily used by one organization, the Save China's Tigers project. Any prominence of this use of the term in general Google searches or elsewhere on Wikipedia seem to result from vigorous promotional efforts on the part of that project, which have included User:China's Tiger introducing substantial mention of the project and many links to the organization's web site in many Wikipedia articles such as the main Tiger article. See also the talk page statement by another user who has contributed to several related conservation topics, Caroline Fraser, Ph.D.. ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One thing I should point out is that this article has been rewritten considerably in the course of editing disputes since its creation, so what you may be seeing in looking at it now may be quite dissimilar to the original article introduced by its creator. I actually think that content from various historical versions is worth saving and merging, it just doesn't appear to me (in a cursory review of the Google Books instances of the term "rewilding" and its use within a few other scoped searches, made as a non-expert in conservation) that this sense of the term "rewilding" is used outside of the Save China's Tigers project and its affiliates (and perhaps in some news outlets reporting on the organization or its press releases.) That assessment is entirely in English; perhaps if the original Chinese term that this meaning is derived from is widely used it would be appropriate to have an article on that term, I'm not sure. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 21:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that it would make sense to delete the topic Rewilding (Carnivores). In attempting to edit the topic to bring it in line with accepted definitions of the term "rewilding," I realized that much of the material--which covers the rehabilitation and reintroduction efforts which can accompany major rewilding projects or can be undertaken on their own, as a means of preventing extinction --was covered already in Rehabilitation, Reintroduction, and various topics describing individual species (Gray wolf, black-footed ferret, etc.) Caroline Fraser, Ph.D. comment added 19:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In an attempt to increase community involvement in this discussion I have placed {{Afdnotice2}} on the articles Rewilding (conservation biology), Reintroduction, Save China's Tigers, and Translocation (wildlife conservation) and notified by talk page two users involved in the previous speedy deletion discussion, Kinu and Stephen. I refrained from notifying the user who made the speedy deletion nomination, which would be a prejudicial action on my part as the AfD nominator. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it would be best to keep this article and peacefully discuss merging at article talk pages.Biophys (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say that reintroduction of carnivores (e.g. wolfs) is indeed different from reintroduction of other species in certain aspects, although I am not an expert. There is definitely a content overlap and promotion problems, but I do not see this article as a terrible POV fork that deserves an outright deletion. There are also some behavior issues around, but I am not at liberty to discuss them.Biophys (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for this AfD nomination has nothing to do with WP:POV (if only because POV would not be a reason to delete an article, it would be a reason to change the article's contents.) The reason that I have nominated this article for deletion is that it does not appear to fulfill WP:Notability, and hence shouldn't be its own article, but should at most be a sub-section of Rewilding (conservation biology). Any discussion of the article creator's motives is only mentioned here to recommend to Wikipedians examination of whether or not the reason to create this article was to document a real topic in conservation biology that is independent of Rewilding (conservation biology), Reintroduction, and Translocation (wildlife conservation). --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This could be written as a good separate sub-article if it was focused on the role of carnivores in ecosystems and on the history of exterminating carnivores, which ultimately led to the importance of their re-introduction. It is not properly written right now, but this is not a reason for deletion. Biophys (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that the article "could be written..." in a certain way, do you mean that you think that the subject fulfills WP:Notability and is a genuine, real, discrete topic outside of the confines of Wikipedia, in conservation biology in general as opposed to just within the community of people working with the Save China's Tiger's project? If that is not what you mean - if you think that Rewilding (Carnivores) does not fulfill WP:Notability but you are making a separate argument unrelated to Wikipedia policy in opposition to deleting it, you need to clearly say so. Anything at all could be massaged and sculpted into a passable-looking article but that is a completely separate issue from whether or not a particular topic meets the standards that the Wikipedia community has set out for whether or not a topic is deserving of its own article - what we have chosen to call "notability".

Did you notice that one of the other accounts participating in this AfD, User:LeoGard which was also coordinating with User:China's Tiger to insert text and links about the Save China's Tigers project into various articles around Wikipedia, has now been indefinitely banned as a suspected sockpuppet of User:China's Tiger? --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 02:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
Keep Rewilding of Tigers is not an isolated example of restoring carnivores to ecosystems. Rewilding of "animals bred in captivity being released into the wild..." is a means used by many rewilding projects other than the Save China's Tigers project, as the article's edit history shows. The content of the article should be a merge between the original version of the article by China's Tigers and the edits since then

A prevalence of material by the original author of the article is to be expected; the edit history reflects a continuing whittling away of CT's material, not systematic inclusion of CT's material by CT. There is insufficient evidence here to prove 'promotion of material' (let alone "vigorous promotional efforts...which have included China's Tiger..."). There is, however, considerable evidence of 'deletion of material'. WP:AGF should prevent speculation on motivation or vested interests behind either the singular restoration or the continued deletions.

(I note that AGF and 'special interest' rules such as WP:COI are utterly incompatible; WP is here engaged in habitual cherrypicking of rationales to suit editors. It is the content that editors add that should be critiqued, revised or deleted; their motivations can never be the subject of anything other than speculation, as AGF quite rightly points out. I would also accept a version of WP:AGF that allowed for reasoned arguments with evidence being presented in support of assertions about editors, as COI actually does (if one reads between the lines sufficiently); sadly, the norm for the use of COI is to quote it, with subsequent voters dittoing hard, every time there is a similarity between usernames and article title, without any evidence from the article of an actual problem.)

Having said that, CT's version was so gutted that I can sympathize with his restoration. What he failed to notice is that good material had also been added.

China's Tigers' original version and the one instance in which he restored his version may rightly be criticized as not containing sufficient evidence of the rewilding of carnivores as a notable procedure, via examples, but many examples were added in the intervening two weeks.

The added material shows examples of rewilding by restoring carnivores: the Grey wolf, Blackfooted ferret, European lynx, White-Tailed Eagle, and Osprey carnivores. A few non-carnivores are also listed; these may be appropriate to include, given an appropriate reason, such as having been bred in captivity and then released or as successful examples of restoration projects, etc.

Anarchangel (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that the deletions you are talking about were done by Caroline Fraser, Ph.D., someone who appears to be a relatively new member of the Wikipedia community attracted here by User:China's Tiger's activities, who is probably unfamiliar with many WP policies. Unless, that is, you are referring to the occasion when I deleted (or corrected, rather) the claim that User:China's Tiger inserted into the Tiger article stating that one of the founders of the Save China's Tigers coined the phrase "rewilding" in 2003.

(A claim which, though that user accepted the corrected version in Tiger, he or she then repeated upon creation of the Rewilding (Carnivores) article. So note that this claim was first inserted into Rewilding (conservation biology) and corrected there by Caroline Fraser, Ph.D. with citations, then inserted into Tiger and corrected by me with those same citations, and then an entirely new article was created to make that claim in.)

As far as your characterization that this is Wikipedia carrying out some sort of cherrypicking, I would note that this is the first or perhaps second time I have ever made an AfD nomination, so at the very least this is unrelated to any ongoing Wikipedia activity or project. I simply happened across some of the other stuff that User:China's Tiger had been doing and started watching related pages. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 03:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my assertion that the recovery by wilding of the Grey wolf, Blackfooted ferret, European lynx, White-Tailed Eagle, and Osprey carnivores, and the citations of these restoration projects, show that there is ample proof of notability for this subject. I stand by my characterization of the nomination as dwelling unnecessarily on China Tiger's mistakes, rather than the article and its potential, and all the more so now, I'm afraid.

However, when I spoke of 'cherrypicking', I was not speaking of you. Sorry for any misunderstanding. I was referring to the way that WP:COI and WP:AGF are diametrically opposed in their perception of Ad hominem criticism, and for anyone to have created COI while AGF existed must have required at the very least a negligent attitude to consistency. I can't think of a single good reason for invoking COI; all the possible scenarios argue against it. For example, C's T bad edits, not the old ones that I knew and spoke of, but the new ones as you have described them, are so obviously bad edits that anyone trying to correct them can easily justify doing so, without requiring recourse to COI, let alone unproven COI. In the event of a 'tie' between material being acceptable or not, COI simply clouds the issue with Ad Hominem. And putting these two scenarios aside, there still is the certainty that accusing someone of COI automatically 'outs' them, invading their privacy. There are stupid things about some WP rules, and many many bad applications of WP rules, but that rule is not only unnecessary but harmful. And so to cherrypicking: AGF understands that ad hominem is an argument that is beside the point. COI, on the other hand, charges boldly into the fray to do battle with the evil propagandists, based solely on the assumption that they are acting on a vested interest, and the additional assumption that this will automatically make them write a bad article, whether either of those things are actually true or not. Anarchangel (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly agree that there are many stupid things about some WP rules. I personally understand the spirit behind AGF but I think it's so hard to articulate well that it should basically never be mentioned outside of the project page about it.

The reason why I spoke specifically about User:China's Tiger's general behavior was in hopes that people looking at this issue would very closely examine that user's previous behavior and activities, but you're probably correct that I presented it poorly. I think that WP:COI is poorly worded in some ways to the point that it doesn't actually match up very well with the standard English meaning of the phrase "conflict of interest" very well, which is why I did not refer to it. (I also don't object to people with a standard-English "conflict of interest" editing Wikipedia as long as they play by the rules, which User:China's Tiger does not seem to be doing.)

(But I'll also note that while I agree that it's not kosher to engage in ad hominem rhetorical logical fallacy, I don't really have much problem in general with criticizing users themselves or their behavior, which is not the same thing. I recognize that I'm at odds with much of the Wikipedia community on this, though.)

Also - in case you haven't looked at the article recently, note that during this AfD User:China's Tiger has gone in, removed all the cited material about Blackfooted ferrets, etc., and restored the claim that someone from the Save China's Tigers project coined the term "rewilding". --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 03:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CT's later edit I know of. In fact, I mentioned it myself, in this discussion, although I took care to phrase it differently. He restored his version. He did not merge subsequent material. I have seen far worse, often. Anarchangel (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite noble of you to be so reserved in your criticism, but now that it's certain that CT is either a sockmaster or engaging in meatpuppetry I don't think that we need to tip-toe around any of these issues any longer.

Just, for future reference, sometimes at least when someone is harsher in their criticism than you would be it's because there is evidence that your own investigation of a matter has not uncovered yet. Please be more reserved in making recommendations in AfDs or elsewhere when you haven't looked into an issue thoroughly. If you wanted to make a statement concerning Wikipedia policies that weren't even mentioned in the AfD nomination a comment would have been more appropriate than your "keep" recommendation here.

(Unless, that is, you are still of the opinion that this topic fulfills WP:Notability or is otherwise a genuine topic in conservation biology independent of Rewilding (conservation biology), Reintroduction, and Translocation (wildlife conservation). If you're going to make such an argument please include evidence about secondary or tertiary sources similar to my comments about Google Books above - ideally, sources that actually contain the word "rewild" and use it in this sense, independent of the Save China's Tigers project, and in a manner indicating why this unusual terminology usage should be more than a footnote in Rewilding (conservation biology), Reintroduction, or Translocation (wildlife conservation). Also, if you disagree with WP:Notability itself, it's really more appropriate to go discuss that on its project page rather than make a WP:POINT about it here in this AfD.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 08:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not required

Dear Wikipedia Administrators:

It is unfortunate indeed that an individual has successfully orchestrated a lengthy campaign to repeatedly alter Wikipedia’s page on ‘Rewilding’ and that it is now being considered for deletion.

It does not take a doctorate in literature to do a search on ‘Rewilding’ and realize that the word has 3 significant past and current usages, that are well expressed on the Wikipedia’s existing Rewilding disambiguation page:

Rewilding may refer to:

· Rewilding (species), the rehabilitation process of animals, especially predators into the wild

· Rewilding (conservation biology), the return of habitats to a natural state

· Rewilding (anarchism), the reversal of human "domestication"

These three usages have major and obvious distinctions evidenced by rewilding’s usage in conservation biology (or ecology). For instance, the controversial ‘Pleistocene Rewilding’ proposal where large areas of North American wilderness would see the introduction of elephants, camels, zebras, lions and cheetahs as a part of large-scale (regional) act of ecological ‘restoration’. This is substantively different from its meaning in reference to the rewilding of endangered species.

I would like to recapitulate the history of our attempt to introduce the rewilding (species) concept to Wikipedia readers substantiated by the Discussion and History pages. We initiated the Rewilding page because many people were interested in the concept of rewilding captive carnivores. Ms. Fraser, who has repeatedly deleted and altered our entries in a diligent attempt to expunge any usage other than its conservation biology usage, has also deleted links to pages on Save China’s Tigers website which elaborated on the rewilding process of tigers as ”properly belong under rubric of wildlife rehabilitation and reintroduction”. In recognition of this usurpation of the page’s original intent, we created a new page: Rewilding - species, (later changed to Rewilding - carnivore), to reflect a distinct and prevalent contemporary usage of the word. Again, this new page was repeatedly altered by Ms. Fraser, contesting the word’s usage in anything other than her narrow (conservation biology) definition and inviting us to get our own page!

I believe that Wikipedia prides itself in expressing all aspects of a subject or word, including its vernacular, alternative and contemporary usage and is not confined to a word’s sometimes esoteric or elitist academic expression. I am not an etymologist, but I would venture to guess that ‘rewilded’ is a composite of the prefix ‘re’ (again), and ‘wild’ - clearly an obvious modern colloquial usage to express the concept “made wild again”. Further, the process of rewilding species has been going on for some time such as Billy Arjan Singh’s reintroducing of captive-bred tigers and leopards in India in 1978 for which he was recognized by the conservation community.

Besides the rewilding of South China tigers by Save China’s Tigers, the process, and the term ‘rewilding’, is being used for a number of species conservation projects including: cheetahs (Cheetah Conservation Fund, Madhya Pradesh State, India, Sir Baniyas Island Carnivore Project), leopards (De Wildt Cheetah and Wildlife Trust, WVI's Amur Leopard Project, giant pandas (China Panda Breeding Technology Committee), cougars (Cougar Rewilding Foundation), hyenas and other species. Rewilding is increasingly being accepted in the conservation community as a potential tool in endangered species recovery.

In citing a first use in the press, Ms. Fraser credits Jennifer Footes article in Newsweek in 1990, but chose to omit the actual quote which I include here: “Militants vow not just to end pollution but to take back and "rewild" one third of the United States.” - Jennifer Foote, "Trying to Take Back the Planet," Newsweek, February 5, 1990 – a usage clearly having a social/political context. Wikipedia also suggests a different first use: “The word ReWilding was first coined by Animá teacher and author Jesse Wolf Hardin under the pen name Lone Wolf Circles in 1986, and was meant to refer to personal rewilding (primal awareness, meeting one's needs, acting not out of obedience but personal responsibility) as well as wilderness restoration”. Neither of these uses reflect a usage associated with a process of species recovery.

We do not dispute the position on use of the word by Michael Soule to describe landscape-scale ecological restoration and we support its inclusion in that context. On her website, under the title “What is Rewilding” Ms. Fraser says: “Rewilding aims to save species by restoring habitats, reviving migration corridors, and brokering peace between people and predators.” However, the reality of the contemporary use of ‘rewilding’ has seen a change to reflect real-world conservation efforts to save specific endangered species (usually carnivores) that DOES NOT necessarily include corridors, or large-scale ecological restoration characteristics described by Soule, nor the social, anarchistic meaning.

Does this make the ‘species’ usage of the word less significant, credible or relevant to Wikipedia? Like the statistician who drowned in the lake that averaged 4” deep, Ms. Fraser needs to take a broader, more encompassing view of meanings than those used in her subjective world.

In her presumptively entitled “Reason for creating this page” comment on the Rewilding (species) discussion page, Ms. Fraser says: “…as far as rewilding goes, this one group cannot define the term for the rest of the world, merely as a means of advertising their own interests.” We agree, nor should an individual who is actively promoting her book “Rewilding the World” or her website by the same name.

We encourage the administrators of Wikipedia to set aside this subjective squabbling and retain three distinct usages of the word ‘rewilding’ and discourage attempts at ownership for any individual’s vested interests.

China's Tiger (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:China's Tiger has recently reverted the article to an earlier version closer to the original by that user. I have just searched through the references and it appears that the only sources used for the article that contain the word "rewilded" at all are the sources related to the Save China's Tigers project, five of which are links to web pages hosted at the project's web site; i.e. all of the sources mentioning other instances of reintroduction, relocation, or translocation of captive carnivores to natural habitats use those words and not the word "rewilding".

Another note is that according to some of the source links an individual affiliated with the project is currently marketing a book entitled Rewilded that was released several months ago. Currently the book's Amazon page, Amazon author's page, and an image of the book's back cover do not mention the proceeds of the book being donated to the project or any philanthropic organization. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 16:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

To: Struthious_Bandersnatch Please note that this version of the article is just a start, it is still far from the final product. Other signifcant projects such as a recent orphaned lions rewilding project in South Africa, and Billy Arjan Singh's Tigress rewilding project will also be included. Sections such as "controversies" and "expert support" will also be added as the article continue to be improved on and edited upon. China's Tiger (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 3:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge

An examination of the page leads me to believe that the article is a thinly-disguised advertisement for Save China's Tigers. The term "rewilding" as used in this particular article is fairly synonymous with "reintroduction" or "rehabilitating" when it comes to preparing and placing non-wild carnivores back into the wild. The information found within the article when it comes to "rewilding" is found in various other articles on the synonymous subject. There is no need to duplicate it here, and in fact can be confusing with different bits of relevant information spread across different articles instead of concentrated into a single page. Efforts by Save China's Tiger, while extremely worthwhile, can be relocated (or perhaps "rewilded") back to Save China's Tigers own wiki page. Lighthope (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

doubtful about deletion Dear All,

In my opinion, there is no need to delete the particular article in discussion here. Rewilding is a term with many different definition, and "branches". Within Conservation Biology itself, rewilding has many meanings. In recent years, there have been an uprising of "rewilding" projects, in which captive carnivores is presented with natural environment and game items for them to regain their hunting and survival instincts because research has shown that if no such rewilding process is implemented, chances of death of the particular carnivore will be much higher.

So yes, the more modern definition of rewilding is the rehabilitation of captive carnivores, to allow them to regain their survival potential before being released in the wild. And with that said, they must be "Captive-bred" or "hand-reared". There are so many examples and instances of this happening, such as John Varty's Tiger Canyons project whereby two captive bred tigers from bowmanville zoo are rewilded, Billy Arjan Singh's project etc.

A recent lion rewilding project also clearly indicats that there is a Difference between rewilding of carnivores/species and that of landscape(conservation biology). Read this article about Re-wilding of captive bred lions:http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/lion-reintroduction.html#cr

Examples of this type of new "re-wilding" method is pretty ample out there, and Save China's Tigers may be right in that they are the first official rewilding programme. I believe as more people contribute to the article, including myself, it would be more detailed and less bias than it is right now.

Deletion should be the last resort taken, Wikipedia should be more open about its article policies and allow time for these new stud articles to be given a chance to expand before suggestions about deletion come into play.

Just my 2 cents worth, Cheers.

LeoGard (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, to your knowledge is the usage described in Rewilding (Carnivores) part of conservation biology? Because if it is, it belongs in the Rewilding (conservation biology) article. I personally am totally in favor of a small section about it in that article (Small because really, it does not by any means appear to be a very common usage of the term and text about it containing tons of links to the Save China's Tigers web site, as appears in so many articles around Wikipedia, should not dominate that article. By the way, do you know what search engine optimization is?) if community consensus supports it, because it does get some hits in Google Books, it just doesn't appear to be an independent topic.

What I am not so hot about is User:China's Tiger first inserting into Rewilding (conservation biology) the claim that someone from his or her organization coined the term "rewilding" and getting corrected there by Caroline Fraser, Ph.D. with citations, then inserting the same claim into Tiger and getting corrected by me with those same citations, and then creating an entirely new article to make that claim in. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 04:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, LeoGard, it's really interesting that User:China's Tiger and you have both edited the completely non-tiger-related page How to Train Your Dragon (film). In fact, China's Tiger added the two sections Dragon Species and then Trivia and then when another user deleted them it seems that you added them back twice. You guys must be really good friends. Too bad you didn't mention that.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/China's Tiger

I don't know whether you're really a "volunteer" for the Save China's Tigers project or not but you've probably done a good job potentially damaging their reputation. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The account LeoGard, which was participating in this AfD above and which coordinated with the User:China's Tiger account in inserting text about the Save China's Tigers project and links to the project's web site into several Wikipedia articles, has now been indefinitely banned as a suspected sockpuppet of User:China's Tiger. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 02:25, 23 February 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. -- Lear's Fool 10:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geelong Fine Art School

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

this is not a public school but rather a private college, a rather tiny one given its shopfront. 2 gnews hits [2] and only in the local newspaper and no wider coverage outside Geelong means it's not notable. LibStar (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Calling the Geelong Advertiser a "local newspaper" is a little misleading considering it is the major newspaper to a city of over 160,000 people. I would think that if the school received significant coverage in the Advertiser then it would pass the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it still is only 2 hits. so even the Advertiser does not significantly cover it. LibStar (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS, no ghits. An 'artist run school' with 'no marking system' doesn't sound like it'll ever have any notability. Szzuk (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and User:Szzuk. Whatever the size of the town, it still makes The Geelong Advertiser a local newspaper, just as much as the UK's Birmingham Post and the Worcester Evening News - all cities of the same size or larger. Kudpung (talk) 01:23, 18 February 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 Mandsford 20:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borgahan Gümüşsoy

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. nothing in gnews [3]. and IMDB reveals a very limited career. [4]. insufficient info to establish any major roles. LibStar (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sourcability. While not at all concerned about unreliable IMDB's lack of information on a Turkish actor or Turkish productions, unless Turkish Wikipedians can come up with something, WP:UNKNOWNHERE will seal this one's fate. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:44, 15 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, -- Lear's Fool 03:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only two appearances listed on IMDB. Still early on in career to be notable. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:58, 21 February 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 Halal. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Halal Cooking

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

Article largely duplicates information found in Halal and Dhabihah, which are also the only two references given aside from a blog. Topic is also covered at Islamic dietary laws. Seems to be unnecessary duplication (triplication?). Katherine (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-unique-to-Wikipedia information, Merge correctly sourced, unique-to-Wikipedia information into suitable articles, such as Halal. There may be information there which is correctly sourced and unique, which shouldn't be lost. 123 Hedgehog 456 13:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Halal or Islamic dietary laws. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Yvonne's halal kitchen, that's a nice touch. This is actually a serious, distinct topic for those of us scouring the aisles and squinting at labels. -Aquib (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halal. There is no properly sourced information here - it cites a Wordpress blog and two Wikipedia articles! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 26 February 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and Ice (Revis album)

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

The group has confirmed that Fire and Ice was only a working title and that the track listing is no longer fixed Ts4079 (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All we have to do is rename the article and delete the "confirmed songs" section. The history of the album still applies. Sergecross73 msg me 19:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Okay, I went and updated the page. The article name has been changed, and the tracklist is off. I realize it isn't the best article in the world now, but it should not be deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I am satisfied by the renaming of the article and am happy for the Article for Deletion tag to be removed.Ts4079 (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close; nominator has withdrawn. Chubbles (talk) 19:56, 18 February 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 by Lear's Fool as G3. Non-admin closure to this AfD. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1847 China Japan Gold Traders Stamp

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

This is an internet-based hoax that has no basis in historically possible fact or is supported by any verifiable source. Speedy as a hoax removed, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - admin declining the speedy changed their mind based on the evidence and deleted the article just at the same time as I progressed to AfD. Thanks Fæ (talk) 07:49, 12 February 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 Operation Compass. If a proper reference can be found the information can be merged from the history. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vittorio Revetra

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

A Lieutenant-Colonel in the Italian Air Force during WWII. His claim to fame is that he spotted tracks of British vehicles, reported it to command, which didn't do anything about it, and therefore the British caught the Italians by surprise. In the Attack on Pearl Harbor, the Privates who spotted the Japanese planes on radar are not notable, but the higher up, Kermit Tyler, who screwed up is notable. Bgwhite (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All hits in Google books (including for Italian books) for this name are only brief mentions of the incident where he spotted the British advance, with no details on Revetra beyond his rank and position at the time. As such notability is not established. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore not notable under the General Notability Guideline. Of course there is no reason why this information cannot be included in the relevant article on the battle itself (with an inline citation of course), it just doesn't meet the guidelines for a stand alone article. Anotherclown (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~Delete~~: insufficient coverage to establish notability for a separate biographical article. Per Anotherclown, though, there would be no issues with including the subject's name in the article related to the incident (provided it is referenced). AustralianRupert (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect to, and mention in, Operation Compass per Bahamut seems like a workable solution so long as it is referenced and doesn't breach WP:UNDUE. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Operation Compass. Seems like another instance where the person isn't notable, but the event is. Redirects are cheap, and it is plausible (if less than likely) that the name could be a search term. bahamut0013^words _deeds 18:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per the reasoning given above by Bahamut0013. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Operation Compass. Notable enough incident to be mentioned within the context of that article. Edward321 (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm a little fuzzy as to the nom's reasoning. He seems to be saying that Revetra (a lieutenant-colonel who the article claims commanded the Italian fighter force in Libya) is non-notable because he didn't screw up, but that Tyler (a lieutenant, three ranks his junior) is notable because he did! That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. If Revetra really was commander of the Italian fighter force in Libya then that would seem to make him pretty notable. I agree that since the article isn't currently referenced we don't know one way or the other, but if a reliable reference is given that he held that position then I would vote keep. We would certainly keep an article on a British or American officer who held such a position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you misread. Reverta relayed the information and a General disregarded the information. In Pearl Harbor's case, Lieutenant Kermit Tyler disregard the information, plus it has the added factor of the brand new radar. Rank doesn't matter, who/why of the screw up does. Bgwhite (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't misread. I don't actually think Tyler is particularly notable. However, I suspect that he would be kept in an Afd simply because he was an American who played a part in an incident which everybody has heard of rather than an Italian who played a part (probably a much more significant part, in actual fact) in a part of the war which very few have heard of. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now definitely keep. It appears that Revetra was commander of the Italian Air Force Expeditionary Corps in Africa.[5] That's definitely notable. Poor article, could do with much expansion, but obviously a notable individual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've linked to a forum post that mentions he is a General and overall commander. All the books say he was a Lieutenant-Colonel and not the overall commander. A search for "General Revetra" and "Generale Revetra" on Google only mentions your linked forum. Can't find anything for just a plain Colonel either. Can't find anything beyond rank and position, but that certainly doesn't mean the info isn't out there. Can you see if something else is out there? Bgwhite (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've looked and I can't find anything on the internet. I think we need an Italian-reader to have a look at Italian print sources. My instinct is still to keep, however, since it does appear that Revetra held a senior position in the air force in Africa. Of course, if he was a general officer (or was later promoted to general officer rank) then under WP:SOLDIER he is intrinsically notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A single posting on a very non-RS forum doesn't compell me to believe this air force command is even plausible, much less verifiable. An AfD must judge the article as it is, and not with a wild hypothesis of what it could be if certain unlikely conditions check out. If it's redirected and further information comes to light, it would be a simple matter to fix (or for that matter, to undelete it if that was the result). bahamut0013^words _deeds 22:58, 19 February 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. If anyone would like access to the deleted content (for a merge to Howard C. Reiche School or any other article), please let me know. -- Lear's Fool 10:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howard C. Reiche

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

Claim to fame is an elementary school in Maine named after him and a National Ski Patrol member, eight years after the founding of the ski patrol. Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Update I've nominated Howard C. Reiche School for AfD per MelanieN suggestion. Discussion is found here. Bgwhite (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Howard C. Reiche School (though there is a possible notability issue with that article). Notability is not inherited, and being a ski patroller doesn't make you notable either. Ravendrop 07:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, and the elementary school should be deleted also. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the elementary school per your suggestion. Bgwhite (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, the elementary school itself should be merged/redirected (so voted there). OSborn^arf_contribs. 03:26, 19 February 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) 23:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Maxwell (minister)

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

Fails the biographical and general notability guidelines. Extremely limited coverage to be found on Google News, which includes a handful of mentions, usually as the presiding minister at funerals. The limited bio on the website of his school gives no indication of notability. -- Lear's Fool 06:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 06:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 06:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 06:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could be a technical pass of WP:Prof#C6 depending on the status of the institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Unless some reliable sources can be provided to verify the content here, it should be deleted regardless. -- Lear's Fool 06:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The college website says clearly that he is the President. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    - I suppose. Regardless, I think that criterion is more intended for people like Vice-Chancellors of major universities and the like. I don't think being president of a small (400 students) Bible college would qualify. -- Lear's Fool 07:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is indeed the point. Does the college qualify as a major academic institution? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Though I'm not sure there is a formal policy, I don't think a small religious college (of any religion) can be considered a "major academic institution". For example, this particular school apparently has 30 faculty, which would be smaller than a single department at a research university. Therefore, I don't think that criterion WP:PROF #6 applies. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Agree with Agricola's assessment. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The halo of Shiva – Shiva Ratri

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

No context. No references. Possible duplicate of Mahashivaratri. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essay--Sodabottle (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like OR, no context, citations or reason to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:18, 13 February 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) 13:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magnum Magnetics

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

Was up for speedy deletion, but possible association with anti-dumping/subsidizing trade case makes it a not so clear case. Moving to AfD for additional review. Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 06:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete, my db-ad tag was removed. Corvus cornix_talk 06:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This business makes magnetic plastic of the kind worked into refrigerator magnets and decals. No showing of any significant impact on history, technology, or culture. The trade case seems routine litigation. A Bloomberg analyst report does not confer notability on a business. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:53, 15 February 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. A cursory review of the article reveals virtually zero information that would be useful in a merge, a redirect is likely not useful because the title is not plausible as a search term, and the consensus below is clearly that the Transformers Animated version of Bumblebee does not require his own article. lifebaka++ 19:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bumblebee (Transformers Animated)

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

I decided that this article needs at the minimum needs a deletion because myself and User talk:Mathewignash have debated adnauseum the notability of such articles to a standstill. But there is a lack of sufficient third person sources to justify a spin off Bumblebee article. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although editors should be aware of Wikipedia's systemic bias against Transformers, this particular article should be deleted. There is no evidence of independent notability for this version of the character, and the majority of the article is composed of un-encyclopaedic levels of detail. (It would rarely be appropriate to detail the plot of every episode a character has appeared in, or exhaustively list all of their appearances, and certainly not for a character sub-version with so minor an impact on the public consciousness.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, if someone wants to keep it it should be on wikis related to transformers, Sadads (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Speedy Close - This nomination was done in bad faith in order for the nominator to bypass normal channels and get his way with a merger proposal. The nominator of this article already has a proposed merger of this article goingand now he attempts to propose a deletion in order to FORCE the outcome in his merger. He did not propose this deletion because he legitimately wants the article deleted, but to get his way. If he wants more opinions for the proposed merger, then he should ask for those and get it through properly. Mathewignash (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD takes priority over merge discussions. If the article is fundamentally not encyclopaedic content, it should be deleted, not merged. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one made the assetion that the article was unencyclopedic. The article was nominated because the nominator claimed it lacked sufficient reliable third party sources to stand alone, but since he seems to WANT a merger, then he didn't nominate FOR DELETION in good faith. If you want an article merged, you propose a MERGER not a DELETION.Mathewignash (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't want the article merged. I don't think it contains any encyclopaedic content; it's entirely made up of trivia or inappropriately fine detail, and doesn't cover a notable incarnation of the character. If you're worried about the bad faith of the nominator, save us all the trouble of a procedural close and immediate renomination by pretending I'm the nominator, and deal with my arguments. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a single article on Bumblebee the Transformer. We don't need more than one article on a character, no matter how many iterations of a franchise it's been in. I'll note that we manage to fit Doctor (Doctor Who) into a single article (well, mostly, at any rate). Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Doctor Who is much of an example to be citing when it comes to arguing about the excesses of Transformers articles on Wikipedia. There are seperate articles for the doctor, his vehicles, his sonic screwdriver, and every episode and book in the series. If we used it as an example we would need an article about Bumblebee's laser pistol and his helicopter backpack, as well as one for every episode of the Transformers TV series and one for every Transformers book. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Bumblebee (Transformers), for now at least. Harry Blue5 (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a single Bumblebee article for now. It's possible this should be deleted altogether, with the Bumblebee article pruned. But for the sake of building a consensus, let's take a compromise approach to dealing with unsourced plot-heavy material. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article and merge anything useful to the main Bumblebee article. There's not a lot to move over, however.Cúchullain ^t/c 13:40, 26 February 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) 14:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Binary University College of Management & Entrepreneurship

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

not all private educational institutions are notable. this one only gets 2 gnews hits and 3 gscholar [6]. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 1 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, LibStar (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the deletion of the article should be on-hold first because I found the article that the section About Binary should be rewrite or remove because this article was written like an advert. In addition, I found that this page does not meet Wikipedia requirements, so, I suggest that the article should be Wikify. I had request the rescue in order to improve this article. WPSamson (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable educational institution. I have deleted the majority of the article as it was a copyvio of this site. SnottyWong ^express 15:24, 12 February 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Esrailian

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

Ordinary doctor, with no evidence of notability. All of the references are links to pages which satisfy one or more of the following: not an independent source; gives only passing mention of Esrailian; does not mention Esrailian at all; quotes Esrailian about another topic, but does not deal primarily with him as subject matter. (PROD was removed without explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's quite a high-profile doctor. He's mentioned in newspapers due to his appointment by Arnold Schwarzenneger and also in connection with Farah Fawcett-Majors. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly notable for community efforts and medical positions. Chefcritic ((Talk) 0721, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — Chefcritic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep He probably passes WP:ACADEMIC for his numerous citations at Google Scholar and his many publications at PubMed. He is often quoted at Google News Archive [7], even on matters where he was not directly involved; apparently reporters consider him a go-to expert in his field. He is one of only eight physicians currently serving on the California Medical Board, a prestigious and powerful position (though not necessarily conveying automatic notability). I will add a few references that are not self-referential; that was a valid point by nominator. --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JamesBWatson, I notice that you were the one who added the "autobiography" tag to the article. I believe I have cleaned up the article sufficiently (wikifying, deleting the irrelevant namedropping, etc.) that the tag could now be dropped. Please take a look and see what you think. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 6 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) 02:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Another view or 2 would be helpful here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Close No problems with notability. This should have been closed, not relisted. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've noticed several AfDs with multiple policy-justified Keep comments and no Deletes that this same admin has relisted. I hope he is equally eager to relist AfDs with similar numbers of Delete comments, but somehow my suspicion is no. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:10, 12 February 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) 13:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GXS (company)

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

Delete. Non-notable company per WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — candidate for speedy deletion as advertising. Keep — concerns addressed by Novickas. Feezo (Talk) 10:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — edited 23:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
~~Speedy~~ delete, unambiguous advertising: an award-winning Managed Services Company providing Business-to-Business e-Commerce and data integration services around-the-world..... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete. After Novickas's edits, it no longer reads quite as much like advertising. On the other hand, there's still nothing that indicates that this business has had significant effects on history, technology, or culture; routine coverage of the fact that it's had acquisitions, been acquired, and been spun off does not make that case. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find sufficient coverage in third party sources. Polyamorph (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Keep after Novickas (see below) incorporated some 3rd party references.Polyamorph (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable per Hoover's: "The company operates one of the world's largest business-to-business (B2B) e-commerce networks, connecting thousands of trading partners and managing more than a billion transactions each year." [8]. Coverage in Forbes [9], Washington Post, [10], etc. It is rather promotional. If no one else fixes it within a few days, I'll stub it down to a few sentences from those sources. Novickas (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Severely pruned and several 3rd party refs added. Novickas (talk) 20:34, 6 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) 02:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—There appear to be enough secondary references to Global eXchange Services in Google to indicate notability.—RJH (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; satisfies WP:CORP. bobrayner (talk) 09:42, 19 February 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) 14:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jung Lin

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

The most notable thing about this pianist mentioned in the article was being part of a major Chopin recital. Okay — but where's the notability? Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NM. A brief look on google also shows that subject passes WP:GNG Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 02:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Might be WP:BIAS. Subject is a Taiwanese so reliable secondary sources in English may be hard to be found. Suggest help be requested at WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 06:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted in the article itself, her active area is supposed to be New York City, not Taiwan. I don't see a systemic bias issue here. --Nlu (talk) 10:40, 5 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) 01:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Not notable enough IMO. If someone can provide more secondary sources, I would change my mind. ScienceApe (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. No prejudice against recreating with sources. Will userfy or incubate upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hsu Shu-chi

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

There is nothing in the article that suggests that this film director's films were themselves notable, and IMDB confirms only one of the three asserted in the article. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Under the traditional and simplified Chinese spellings of this individual's name, there does seem to be coverage that might allow for article expansion and merit inclusion per WP:GNG, but they will need translation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:50, 30 January 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) 01:20, 5 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) 01:51, 12 February 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) 13:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AllBusiness.com

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WTF? There are significant news stories already listed in the article, without even needing to search; see for example this New York Times article. Google News Archive finds pages and pages of hits; many are press releases, others are general-interest news stories under the company's byline, but some are significant reporting about the company. It's a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dun & Bradstreet so I suppose it could be merged to that page, but I believe it is independently notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; looks to have substantial coverage in independent sources, so I think it meets our notability standards, although anything in this sector is going to look slightly spammy at first glance. bobrayner (talk) 08:39, 19 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verari Technologies

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

Another promotional desktop virtualization company article, also created by a single-purpose account (User:BHmltn), almost exclusively sourced to press releases. News archive searches reveal no significant, lasting coverage of the company amidst a spattering of brief reviews of the company's product by trade publications. jæs (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly violates WP:NOTE, and probably WP:SPAM. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is real company. Has significant Ghits of the nonPR variety. Of course the article needs to be majorly reworked to address the concerns raised above. The "Cirrascale" issue also needs clarity. Annette46 (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you share some of those hits that you believe reliably indicate notability? jæs (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete "this is a real company" is not a compelling argument per Wikipedia:EXIST. Sure it might be real but is it notable and to verifiable sources exist. If above poster adds reliable sources to article will reconsider. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 06:00, 12 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) 01:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The google news link in the "Find sources" above provides links to sufficient material to meet WP:GNG. Per "The demise of San Diego's Verari Systems and its resurrection as Verari Technologies,"[11] there likely is plenty written about the failures resulting in the layoff of 223 employees. I'm amaze that anyone having skeletons in the closet would want a Wikipedia article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:23, 20 February 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 both. No evidence provided that Ms. Chang or her company are notable. lifebaka++ 19:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JoMei Chang

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

Neither this person nor the company she founded (listed below) seems notable to me. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also proposing Vitria Technology (her company) for deletion.
Merge JoMei Chang to Vitria Technology. Keep Vitria Technology. She is mentioned in some notable magazines, and made a top entreprenueurs (or something like that) list for one of them in 2001. Vitria is also traded on the NASDAQ, and per WP:LISTED while that this fact alone does not signify notablility, it is something to consider.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep theres coverage of her in major publicationsThisbites (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She has a few lines of favorable coverage in a reputable business magazine, and has been quoted occasionally in reputable publications. That is not notability. I thought about how to rewrite it, but there is too much unsourced material, excessive detail, and self-flattery. Perchloric (talk) 02:29, 5 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) 01:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: This is a resume disguised as an article about a person not yet sufficiently notable to merit her own page. (That's the kindest way I can put it.) Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence provided that Ms. Bondar is notable. lifebaka++ 19:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Bondar (actress)

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

Non-notable bit actress. Blueboy 96 04:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Character within the show iCarly : Valerie Theturtleguy (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable in the theatre world as well, if you google her name, she has dozens of pages. Her wiki article is incomplete, only shows a few credits. She has a fairly substantial fan-base. Youtube based as well. knowledgeisalwayskey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.41.138 (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carly Bondar (born January 19, 1992) is a Canadian born actress, currently residing in Hollywood, California. She is most known in the world of film for her role as Valerie on the Nickelodeon television series iCarly and in the theatre world for her off-broadway role as Tina Denmark in Ruthless! The Musical. After years of stage work on the east coast, her Hollywood career began in 2004 with a series of national commercials, which led to roles in film and television. In 2004, she made an appearance alongside Hailey Anne Nelson, Dylan Sprouse, Cole Sprouse, Spencer Breslin, and Alyson Stoner as Dr. Seuss received his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. She has since been linked to Nathan Kress and Alix Kermes.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the three posters above: If she is so notable, could you please add some references to the article to prove it? YouTube is no good. IMDb is no good. Twitter and FaceBook are no good. Look at WP:RS to see what is good. Peridon (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is IMDb no good? It is the actor database. You cannot fake credits on it, it's legitimate. Most kid actors who have pages on here do not have sources that extend beyond IMDb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.41.138 (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen cases where the IMDb link for someone turned out to be a totally different person, and so far as I am aware the info is user supplied, and it is definitely not guaranteed accurate by IMDb. They will take down anything obscene or defamatory that is pointed out top them, but do not seem to check otherwise. I seem to remember a case where the IMDb link appeared to be the only evidence for a person's existence. We need more coverage. Independent coverage. The IMDb link in question does appear to be the person in question, but tells us absolutely nothing regarding notability. You can get on IMDb for playing Second Footman in Act II Scene 3 of Ethelred Crum's 'Mint Sauce' (which ran for three performances at the Very Small Theatre in Downby-in-the-Swamp). What other articles have is irrelevant - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. We mightn't have caught up with them yet. By the way, repeating the article here is not a very good way of commenting. Look at WP:RS. Prove us wrong. Peridon (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The joke disproves the assertion. It is easy to see that 2nd Footman etc is not notable, therefore it is as easy to eliminate an IMDb citation that does not in fact show notability as it is to find IMDb citations which do show notability. IMDb is at least complete; my nickname for AllMovie etc is AllFail, because they are so woefully incomplete (Alan Lee on IMDb. AllFail almost completely failing to show Alan Lee). Rotten Tomatoes is even worse: there is nothing at that site that is not PoV, and I have seen one movie's ratings (a subjective rating of the number of 'positive' and 'negative' reviews) attached to the review lists (more PoV) for another movie. The only source that comes close to IMDb's coverage is Metacritic; because it only deals in box office numbers, I won't say it surpasses IMDb, except for that one type of use. As with all IMDb criticism, assertions are made with no evidence, such as "They will take down anything obscene or defamatory that is pointed out top them, but do not seem to check otherwise", in the face of evidence to the contrary. I can only assume that the four-paragraph scrupulously-worded disclaimer on the 'Infosource' page on IMDb is as far as WP editors who Want to Believe in IMDb unreliability have pursued the subject. Surely they have never seen the two sentences at AllFail, that more than equally reduces the shiny veneer of professionalism to dingy reality: "AMG gets information from a variety of sources. We look for any pertinent information available on the packaging of videos, promotional materials, press releases, watching the movies, etc." Anarchangel (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. There are no hits from a Google News search, and I've done a general search, but I've not been able to find reliable sources. A search for 'ruthless "carly bondar"' only turns up 4 possibly reliable sources that discuss her in any detail, but they are only brief sections of reviews of the play: [12], [13], [14], [15]. I don't think that is enough for notability. To establish notability, basically you need indepedent, reliable sources (newspapers would be the obvious example), that provide significant coverage of her. Silverfish (talk) 21:50, 10 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) 01:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this community newspaper review that provides a little coverage about her role in a high school play. But there is no significant coverage about her in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 14 February 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) 14:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Orlando

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE. 5th round draft pick, chose to play for a team in Europe instead of the NBA, so evidence of notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 05:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no evidence of notability. Basketball players are automatically notable when they're drafted in the first 2 rounds of an NBA Draft, not the third round and later. Being a high school principal is not evidence for inclusion either. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It all comes down to his notability as an athlete. Do you have a reference to policy that says that "only" the top x players/draft picks are notable? He played "professionally" in Germany, which I take to mean, from an American pov, that he was in a "minor" league. But still professional. His notability does not appear to rely on his job as principal. Student7 (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response: WP:NBASKETBALL #2. Also, none of the references in the article state what team he played for in Germany. In fact, ref#2 even says "After two years in the league, which he described as the level of Division 1 college basketball, Orlando left basketball and moved to Florida, first to Gainesville and then to Jacksonville, where he got a job in the business office at Riverside Hospital.". College-level talent in an unnamed "professional" league in Germany doesn't pass muster for notability. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:08, 7 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) 01:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all. ScienceApe (talk) 14:50, 12 February 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 lack of discussion means this is a no-consensus close, with no prejudice against a renomination. However, a bold redirect to Howling Bells discography would not require a renomination. -- Lear's Fool 14:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Bones (song)

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

Fails notability requirements per Wikipedia:MUSIC Yaksar (let's chat) 05:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Howling Bells discography. Tracks, label, etc. are verifiable and would add to the discography article.--Michig (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 5 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) 01:35, 12 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) 13:48, 2 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 lack of discussion means this is a no-consensus close, with no prejudice against a renomination. However, a bold redirect to Howling Bells discography would not require a renomination. -- Lear's Fool 14:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Hearts

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

Fails notability requirements per Wikipedia:MUSIC Yaksar (let's chat) 05:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Howling Bells discography. Tracks, label, etc. are verifiable and would add to the discography article.--Michig (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 5 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) 01:35, 12 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) 13:48, 2 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 Howling Bells discography. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Chaos

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

Fails notability requirements per Wikipedia:MUSIC Yaksar (let's chat) 05:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Howling Bells discography. Tracks, label, etc. are verifiable and would add to the discography article.--Michig (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 5 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) 01:35, 12 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, not individually notable per WP:NSONGS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:00, 2 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 lack of discussion means this is a no-consensus close, with no prejudice against a renomination. However, a bold redirect to Howling Bells discography would not require a renomination. -- Lear's Fool 15:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Setting Sun (Howling Bells song)

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

Fails notability requirements per Wikipedia:MUSIC Yaksar (let's chat) 05:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Howling Bells discography. Tracks, label, etc. are verifiable and would add to the discography article.--Michig (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 5 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) 01:34, 12 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) 13:49, 2 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 lack of discussion means this is a no-consensus close, with no prejudice against a renomination. However, a bold redirect to Howling Bells discography would not require a renomination. -- Lear's Fool 15:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Stone

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

Fails notability requirements per Wikipedia:MUSIC Yaksar (let's chat) 05:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Howling Bells discography. Tracks, label, etc. are verifiable and would add to the discography article.--Michig (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 5 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) 01:34, 12 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) 13:49, 2 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) 13:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of Maureen McGovern

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

No sources found besides a laconic review on Allmusic. Prod declined without comment. Fails WP:NALBUMS; compilation albums are not inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi, TPH. I had discovered that you put the article that I provided "20th Century Masters - The Millennium Collection: The Best of Maureen McGovern" in the category of deletion nomination. I had tried to find other sources besides Allmusic, but all I could find were articles on this particular CD from the websites of Amazon, CDUniverse, Musicstack, and other websites of retailers. I honestly own a copy of this particular album, so the primary source of the article was the album itself. I'm not sure if this helps but I wanted to bring that to your attention nevertheless. I've tried to find reviews by other sources besides AllMusic, but I haven't found any as of yet. It will be greatly appreciated if you could give me some time to find any reviews and sources. If you could ask anyone else to help me out with any reliable sources, that will be greatly appreciated as well. Feel free to write back soon. --Jpete (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient sources, notability not established. JacksOrion (talk) 10:05, 10 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) 01:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google search turns up lots of online stores selling this compilation album. Like Jpete's vote, this merely proves that WP:ITEXISTS. As Jpete says, there don't seem to be any reliable sources available. Without sources, it fails any standard of notability. It's had its AfD extended for a week, and there are still no sources, despite the plea for time. » scoops “5x5„ 14:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not strictly a compilation album, since as the article notes it includes material not found on any previous album my the artist. Also not a standard "greatest hits" album; instead, it's the only representation of the artist's early career on CD, since the label released this rather than reissue her first few albums. There's almost certainly significant coverage of this point out there -- but it will be very difficult to search for, since the references will typically include statements like "McGovern's early recordings have never appeared on CD, because her label has released only a "greatest hits" album and moved on," without mentioning the unwieldy generic title. (Wikipedia coverage of matters like this, the industrial side of the music business, is conspicuously weak.) An encyclopedia should be encyclopedic; creating (or enlarging) holes in reasonably comprehensive discographies for notable artists (even MOR performers) isn't consistent with the encyclopedic purpose. If not kept, this should be merged into Nice to Be Around, since there's a case to be made that thia is more accurately characterized as a revised CD edition of that LP than a "compilation album". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Wolfowitz.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Album has an Allmusic rating. Also includes material not avialble on other release by the artist. Compilation albums of this nature can be important to a recording artists discography. The article is well presented and complete. Dutchdean (talk) 18:31, 22 February 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. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael R. Mennenga

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

Non-notable writer who fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Two of his three books are from vanity presses, while the third one is from a micropress. In all cases they fail WP:BK. No WP:RS available to support notability of books or author. Qworty (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC) ~~*Weak Delete~~ lots of positives in the previous AfD suggesting he is notable in the podcasting world rather than as an author. But here we are five years later and there are no citations to demonstrate notabillity in either. Previous AfD suggests he might meet WP:AUTHOR for podcasting work, or maybe WP:WEB, but without cites after all this time I'm erring on the side of delete.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For how long must we be responsible for cleaning up Qworty's demolitions-before-deletions? Just as on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dustin Moore, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christopher Macann, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/D'Jais, all within the space of a couple of weeks, and despite my protest at this sort of behaviour, Qworty has gutted the article before nominating it, including removing links to Slice of Sci-Fi, Evo Terra, and Podcasting, which were all clues that would have made ThePaintedOne's search on the first nomination completely unnecessary. I am forbidden by AGF to speculate on why, but I protest this restriction; evidence exists in good measure for allegations of bad faith. I do not want to hear about how he removed Peacock terms or some other rare horseshit excuse; his deletions before nomination amount to nothing less than disruption of WP.

The RS that so far has eluded editors are right there, in Google Books.

Podcasting For Dummies, page 294, Tee Morris, Chuck Tomasi, Evo Terra, Kreg Steppe

Expert Podcasting Practices for Dummies page 31, Tee Morris, Evo Terra, Ryan Williams

Secrets of podcasting:audio blogging for the masses page 126

Gaslight Grimoire:Fantastic Tales of Sherlock Holmes

And more can be gleaned from what Qworty deleted, for example:

Sliceofscifi.com Search Slice of Sci-Fi for "Mennenga"

Weak Keep, I'm not 100% convinced by those cites, some are a bit 'mentioned in passing', although the first is stronger. However, as I was unconvinced by the delete in the first place I'll give benefit of the doubt and switch to a keep.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:51, 19 February 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 Redirected to 1969 World Series, which was done some time ago actually. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1969 World Series Highlight Film

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

This topic is not relevant enough to have its own article. It should be summarized and become a part of the 1969 World Series article. Fjord6789 (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)— Fjord6789 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (The nominator has been indef blocked as a Vandalism-only account[16]) [reply]

Delete nothing that can't be put into 1969 World Series. BUC (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Partial Merge per the logical reasoning and comments of BUC and nominator User:Fjord6789. And despite this properly formated AFD being the only edits ever made by the nominator,[17] the reasoning is sound. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw some East Coast bias as to why does this World Series get an article about their highlight film and the others do not and I used my previous Wikipedia knowledge.- Fjord6789 (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Earlier knowledge. As an IP? I support a redirect and partial merge per the comments made by you and by BUC. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article gets an article because someone wrote it, not because of any [[East Coast bias}]. Nothing is inherently preventing someone from writing an article about, say, the 1989 World Series highlight film (involving 2 West Coast teams), assuming there is anything notable to write about it. Rlendog (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, The nominator has been indef blocked, so they will not be able to respond to others comments until the block is lifted. Dave (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And seeing these edits and summaries,[18][19][20] I doubt he'll be back... at least in this persona. Yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the looks of the contribution history, I could almost make a case for a compromised account. But that's for wiser heads than mine to decide. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge per BUC. I can't see a reason to list a single highlight reel when there aren't any others that have articles. Such material rightly belongs in the article concerning the particular series in question. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:02, 23 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) 01:31, 12 February 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. If the candidate is successful in the upcoming election, please let me know and I will restore the page. -- Lear's Fool 03:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declan Breathnach

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

Non notable local councillor. Article created for promotional purposes as subject is a candidate in forthcoming Irish general election. Fails WP:Politician. Note that his candidacy does not make him notable. Snappy (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 15:16, 5 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) 01:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ray^Talk 19:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly non-notable right now. If he wins election to the Parliamentary constituency will that make him notable? It's not clear to me whether such election is tantamount to election to the Irish parliament, or not. --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To clarify, he is standing for election in the Louth parliamentary constituency to the lower house of the national parliament of the Republic of Ireland in the 2011 Irish general election, so if he is successful that would automatically make him notable under WP:Politician, section 1 Current polls suggest it is highly unlikely he will be elected, however if defies the predictions and is elected, then this article can be re-created. Snappy (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold - until the election result.Red Hurley (talk) 14:40, 20 February 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 lack of discussion means this is a no-consensus close, with no prejudice against a renomination. -- Lear's Fool 15:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False Mirror

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see what the problem with the article is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Albums not on important label. Existing refs are False Mirrors own page, a webzine and two about some software he uses that don't mention him. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm the author of the article, so I don't know if I'm really legitimate to join this discussion. The artist/band has been featured and reviewed in some major print magazines here in Germany (Orkus, Sonic Seducer, Zillo), which I see as a criterion for "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.". However I have problems to refer to these articles - they are not available online (however some of them can be found on the artist's webpage), so I left them out and I therefore only referred to one online review as an example. Please advise me how to correct that. I know that the relevance of most bands/artists in the Dark ambient genre is debatable, but in my opinion we should allow at least some of them. The problem is that both the Dark ambient article and the List of dark ambient artists are highly inaccurate because most of the bands/groups/artists listed are rather metal/etc bands, with merely some (minor!) influences of Dark Ambient. My aim was to improve the main article Dark Ambient by first adding a couple of articles for bands. I also created the article for Kammarheit and have an article for Northaunt finished (though not published yet because of this discussion). I also collect sources for a couple of other Dark Ambient groups (Svartsinn, Phelios, Gustaf Hildebrand)... In my humble opinion, we'd need much more articles for the Dark Ambient genre (and of course for all other genres as well), I see no problem with relevance here. Maybe we should add the 'this article is a stub' information? Thanks for listening to my opinion. PS: It took quite a long time to find good sources for these artists, so it really is depressing if an article is speedy deleted... Birchhunter (talk) 23:22, 11 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) 01:27, 12 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) 13:52, 2 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 Sweet Fanny Adams (album). Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Set Me Free (Sweet song)

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails notability criteria for songs. It's an album track that was never released as single. A Google search on "Set Me Free Sweet" yields no third party coverage, despite the article's doubtful claim that "it is considered one of Sweet's most well known and popular songs". The article has been tagged with {{Unreferenced}} and {{Notability}} for more than 2 years, to no avail. I tempted to PROD it but discovered that it has previously been nominated for AfD in April 2009, with the same arguments as indicated here. The result was "speedily keep", for a reason that to me looks like a procedural flaw. – IbLeo ^(talk) 15:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done is what should have been done after the previous Afd was closed, redirect to Sweet Fanny Adams (album). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:59, 7 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) 01:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Sweet Fanny Adams (album) would be perfectly acceptable to me as nominator, and in line with WP:NSONG. – IbLeo ^(talk) 17:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable album track. MoondogCoronation (talk) 01:14, 26 February 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. While the count is slightly split leaning towards deleting, those that wish the article to be kept don't really give a compelling rationale. Comparing Brooklyn and London to Downham Market does not add up. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Downham Market

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

Normal scheduled bus routes are not normally considered notable as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Transportation. It appears to be original research and is unlikely to have reliable secondary sources. It is not in line with the policy that WP is not a travel guide. Charles (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Most of the bus routes there are theoretically operated by comapnies, which are not well known and we don't know if the routes actually operated. Traveline is sometimes wrong. Thus meaning there's only 2 routes which we can trust to be operated. Is this page worth 2 bus routes? '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page is like List of bus routes in Ely, It has very few bus routes but well operated. Anyway the bus routes do operate I looked at other websites to see if traveline is correct. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/broaden scope. While individual bus routes are almost never notable enough for a standalone article, lists of bus routes usually are if there are enough of them (and the information can be sourced, etc). There looks to be just enough routes here to make it worthwhile keeping, but it would probably be better to merge it or expand its scope to include a wider area (e.g. possibly the King's Lynn and West Norfolk district or Norfolk) as there will likely be several rural routes that would not sustain their own article. Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of bus routes is not suitable for an encyclopaedia article, no matter how many routes are on the list. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Precedent suggests otherwise, cf List of bus routes in Greater Manchester, List of bus routes in Derbyshire, List of bus routes in Brooklyn, List of bus routes in Bury St. Edmunds & Newmarket, List of current Metro Local bus routes (Los Angeles), List of MTA Maryland bus routes (Baltimore), Category:Lists of bus routes all exist. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in London (2nd nomination) (Result: Keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in London (Result: Keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in the Thames Valley (Result: Delete as a duplicate of List of bus routes in Slough), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Tallinn (Result: Keep). This is not a WP:WAX argument that these others exist therefore this should be kept, but merely proving that lists of bus routes can be suitable for an encyclopaedia article. If you believe this list is not encyclopaedic, please explain with reference to this article not a generic statement. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf - might be worth adding this list of common AfD outcomes to the transportation section as you helpfully point out that typically these articles are deemed as keepers. MLA (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I've done just that - see Wikipedia:Common outcomes#Buses. Thryduulf (talk) 02:56, 13 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) 01:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a list of bus routes is indeed not notable - TBloemink_{service desk} 09:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my above comment, lists of bus routes can be notable. Why do you think this list of bus routes is not? Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful encyclopedic information per Thryduulf. MLA (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Useful to whom? WP is not supposed to be a directory or a guide.--Charles (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bus route = travel guide argument doesn't make any sense as travel guides don't contain bus routes. The public transport of an area is notable in its collective form, interesting, and useful. MLA (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page has 6 well served bus routes (More than every 5 days) and a few litter ones. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a directory. 74.198.9.234 (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MLA has commented above that this is not a travel guide as such guides do not contain lists of bus routes, please could you explain why you think differently? Please could you also explain why you think this is a directory? WP:NOTDIRECTORY lists eight types of directory, and as far as I can this is not any of them. Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 28 February 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 arguments put forward by those favouring deletion (that the article lacks sufficent coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability) have not been effectively refuted by those in favor of keeping it. If such sources can be found, please let me know, and I will consider restoring the article. -- Lear's Fool 02:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afnix (programming language)

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

Obscure programming language. I can't find any sources other than the project's website itself. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No arguments were given why the language is obscure. The article requires improvements.--Sergey Shandar (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – How about it lacks Ghits and GNEWs of substance and the article provides no independent reliable sources to support claims of notability. ttonyb (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then the tag should say "enhance". Not "delete". Just common sense.--Sergey Shandar (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You or anyone has the ability to do so. In addition the author has been notified and has the burden of providing support for the article. If this does not happen in 7 days after the creation of the AfD the article will most likely be deleted. ttonyb (talk) 15:43, 10 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) 01:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being an "obscure programming language" is a "keep" reason in a paperless encyclopedia. There is a preliminary presumption of notability here when Google generates 50,000 hits. In glancing at those hits, I saw many web pages with "afnix" in the URL, each of these web pages documents that "afnix" has been noticed. Unscintillating (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Obscurity is not a reason to keep anything in an encyclopedia where notability is based on verifiability. Far from 50K GHits is a total of 418 GHits, none of which appear contain any substance that would support Wikipedia defined notability. ttonyb (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you agree that the nominator's statement "obscure programming language" was not based on notability principles. I clicked to page 42 and verify that the 56,500 Google hits changes to 418 Google hits. How did you decide that none of the 418 hits were substantive? Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As I stated above, the article subject lacks Ghits and GNEWs of substance and the article provides no independent reliable sources to support claims of notability. The number of Ghits is really not that hard to review if one gets past the "index of/XXX", "downloads", and other items such as "List of Programming Languages", etc. If I have missed something feel free to add it to the article and notify the AfD participants. Unfortunately, no one has added any reliable sources to the article in the time the AfD has been active. ttonyb (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While in many cases it may be appropriate, it is not the purpose of AfD to add sources to an article. If that was true, editors could abuse the AfD process, in order to bludgeon other editors to add to WP:IDON'TLIKE articles, when they could have added sources themselves. Tolerance of such AfDs would be a burden on both editors and admins. If you will look at WP:Guide to deletion you will see:

first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

Did this happen before this nomination? Have all of the major contributors been notified? Where we are now, we really don't know what would have happened had "communal consensus" been followed. Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Golly, thanks for the lesson in the use and purpose of AfDs. Feel free to forward this to the nominator. As I stated above, the article subject lacks Ghits and GNEWs of substance and the article provides no independent reliable sources to support claims of notability. All you have to do to help the article survive the AfD is add reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is saying "All you have to do" anything other than using AfD as a battering ram? Unscintillating (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Feel free to argue this with the nominator. The purpose of this discussion is the notability of the article. Once more I have not found any Ghits or GNEWs of substance to support any claims of notability. I look forward to your improvements to the article. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As I am the original author, I have started to enhance the Afnix article, which surely needed improvement. Afnix is not an obscure language. It has been around for 10 years and has served for numerous experiments when it comes to combine advanced functional language with the object oriented paradigm. Afnix is also part of the FreeBSD port collection. It would be unfortunate to see the article deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amauryd (talk • contribs)

Comment – The article is not nominated for deletion based on obscurity, but rather because it lacks Ghits and GNEWs of substance and the article provides no independent reliable sources to support claims of notability. All articles in Wikipedia must be verifiable using WP:RS. ttonyb (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sole result is a copy of the Wikipedia article. A Google Scholar search and a Google Books search return no significant coverage. I note that the article is unsourced: The core policy Wikipedia:Verifiability mandates deletion. Cunard (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BURDEN are content policies. If someone challenges that content in the article is sourced, they might put {{cn}} templates on such content, and following policy there would be a time to delete that content. WP:V adds, "But in practice not everything need actually be attributed." This AfD discussion is not about the content of this article, but whether the topic is notable, WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Let's try this once more, the article is nominated for deletion because it lacks independent, verifiable, reliable sources to support claims of notability. There is only one way to provide notability for this article – provide independent, verifiable, reliable sources. There is nothing that supports Wikipedia defined notability for this article. No one expects everything to be supported, but there are no (zero) independent, verifiable, reliable sources to support any claims of notability for this article. If there are independent, verifiable, reliable sources they need to be added to the article in order for it to survive the AfD. ttonyb (talk) 01:55, 21 February 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. -- Lear's Fool 02:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aikido (programming language)

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

Obscure programming language. Can't find any notable sources (just because it was made by some guy at Sun doesn't mean it is notable). Christopher Monsanto (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a good contribution to programming language theory and history. No arguments were given why the language is obscure. --Sergey Shandar (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Woefully uninformed comment - There is zero evidence in the article that this satisfies the general notability guideline. And @Sergey Shandar, the burden of proof is on the person who claims it's notable, not the other way around. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest people use the word "burden" carefully in discussing notability policy, as it tends to confound the discussion with WP:BURDEN content policy. What also helps is to identify relevant notability policy. Unscintillating (talk) 17:47, 15 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) 01:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't past the GNG reliable secondary source requirements. All I can find on the internet are the language's webpage, development site (Sourceforge), and a bunch of download sites. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 09:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know why this professionally-written object-oriented interpreter with five patents does not draw more attention, but I could not find independent secondary sources to establish notability. I added one reference from sourceforge, which at least the material is not a wiki mirror. Unscintillating (talk) 17:47, 15 February 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) 13:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ofra Gelman

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of subsstance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 5 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) 01:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable secondary sources (e.g. magazine/newspaper articles) about the person which would help satisfy WP:BIO. The article mentions she owns a company - this does not make her notable. The article mentions she has various academic degrees - this does not make her notable, either. Also, the article appears to be COI. -IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What that proves in my opinion the academic degrees, and her company.. that she has in fact made an impact. Also the sourcing provides some indepth coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please show how any of this is a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. None of your reasons support either WP:N, WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. There are thousands that have an advanced degree that do not and should not have an article on Wikipedia. If she or her company has truly made an impact there would be multiple instances of reliable sources to support the article. Additionally, I do not understand how you can call the references "in-depth" - at best they are just passing inclusions of the individual and are not "in-depth" discussions of her work or accomplishments. I suggest you to reread WP:RS and the criteria for inclusion and help us understand how your reasoning supports Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. ttonyb (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

very well said Tony, this user fails to address notability. LibStar (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. 5 gnews hits is not significant, and it's all only Vegas press. LibStar (talk) 12:43, 2 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Noble Sage Art Gallery

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

Promotion by a single-purpose account (User:Crisoli77), very likely in a conflict of interest. Does not meet notability in my eyes. bender235 (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I added some references. I don't think the article is unduly promotional. The phrase "Noble Sage" doesn't get any Google hits at telegraph.co.uk or timesonline.co.uk, and only this one at guardian.co.uk. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stub. I think there's enough coverage for this to pass notability, but Wikipedia isn't the place for a directory of past events at a venue, unless all of the individual events are notable in their own right. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:35, 6 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) 01:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more coverage can be demonstrated. V. Anamika looks iffy too. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 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) 13:56, 2 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 merge to List of Transformers books. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Transformers: The Ark : A Complete Compendium of Transformers Animation Models

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

No indication of notability, has no citations, is just a summary of the book, which seems just to be a compendium of info Yaksar (let's chat) 19:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This would seem to be an ideal candidate to merge with the article List of Transformers books, since it's a Transformers book and all. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 17:24, 9 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) 01:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~These bloody Transformers discussions on AfD need to die a slow painful death in a fire where they belong-~~ I mean merge. SixthAtom (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Transformers books per User:198.51.174.5 above. JIP | Talk 06:51, 12 February 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) 14:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sukrita Paul Kumar

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

Non notable author.Fails notability.No major awards.No significant writings or books.Poorly referenced with references that just speak nothing of the subject's notability.It seems like a resume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poet009 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article presents no evidence that she passes WP:PROF for her academic work, and although I found a few hits for her name in major newspapers in Google news archive, the stories mentioned her too briefly to count for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 31 January 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, —SpacemanSpiff 19:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I found her work in books and in some journals, along with some major newspaper. Googled results showed some of her notable work, in my view article can be retain.Bill william compton (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- then please insert those links and make the article suitable to be kept first.Otherwise the article cant be kept like this.--Diameter 15:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

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) 01:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:48, 12 February 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. Orlady (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Highton

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

Fails notability requirements for a professor, sources simply seem to be a few times where he made a statement on salamanders for a news article. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS gives h index of 23. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Nominator should carry out WP:Before before making further AfD nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I have read C1. "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I failed to find any statement to indicate this in the article. Could you help me out there?--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the notes on C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I have, and I'm still not exactly sure which you're referring to and how it applies. But regardless, the page itself needs to make a statement to attest to this notability; its not enough to have simple biographical info in the page without talking about what potentially makes the subject notable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Yaksar already knows all he requires for his chosen purpose. Ignoring arguments, denying everything, and Argumentum ad nauseum is all that is required of a successful deletor. Anarchangel (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Taxonomy in general seems to be a low-citation field compared to other styles of biological research, but he seems to be the world's foremost expert in woodland salamander taxonomy (i.e. if you search Google scholar for plethodon taxonomy, four of his papers come up in the top ten). Although specialized, I think that this together with the modest general-notability sources present in the article should be enough for a keep. To Yaksar: I added a book source that I think may answer your question to Xxanthippe. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 5 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) 01:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per David Eppstein. Edward321 (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citations fulfill WP:Prof#Criteria #1. Anarchangel (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's been recognised by his peers as influential in his field by having a species named after him. Qwfp (talk) 11:16, 25 February 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) 13:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon B. Morgan

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

Fails notability per WP:POLITICIAN Yaksar (let's chat) 20:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though I'm not comfortable including judges in the notability guideline for politicians, that's where they are now. Judges holding statewide office, such as state supreme court judges, are considered notable. But circuit judges, such as this one, aren't. Cullen328 (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wonder if something could be made of this article. The Ninth Circuit, in which he exercises jurisdiction, includes one very large county of over 1,000,000 people. And there seems to be some non-trivial coverage in the Orlando Sentinel which is a local, but major, newspaper. The coverage there all seems to be behind paywalls, but the titles and bylines suggest there could be a bit there at least for a well sourced stubby bio, such as [21] and [22]. But given that writing a decent article with all of these behind-paywall sources would be a tough ask, and the article is not viable in its current state, I can't argue against deletion.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:26, 6 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) 01:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete So far, seems to fail WP:POLITICIAN. I was unable to get past the paywall (for some reason, all the databases that should have access are timing out), but from the short excerpts available publicly Mkativerata's links don't seem to suggest anything more than routine news and human-interest coverage; nothing to suggest lasting historical notability. Weak, because I couldn't get past the paywall. Ray^Talk 19:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsuccessful political candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN AND WP:GNG. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:07, 27 February 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) 13:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Browne

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

Apparently fails WP:GNG. Individual apparently successful but no evidence of notability. One source with no footnotes. Doddy Wuid (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are some references to Browne in books, but I didn't find sufficient coverage. tedder (talk) 20:24, 6 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) 01:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entire article is unverified. Even if everything in the article is true, it doesn't seem to add up to notability. Google News finds little (hard to search because his name is so common). --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 copyvio of www.dresserjohnson.com/about_us.html JohnCD (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Dresser (artist)

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

Article was created by Subject. Recommended deletion per WP:COI WP:NPOV WP:SOAPBOX Phearson (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite I think he is probably notable, but the article needs a good deal of work, and some better sources: there should be some newspaper mentions to be found Being spammy is not cause for deletion. COI is not cause for deletion either, just for careful checking. NPOV is not cause for deletion, just for editing. WP:SOAPBOX also is not cause for deletion, unless the article cannot be edited properly. I call attention also to the article Dresser Johnson about his firm, which duplicates much of this material--or, to be exact, did until I removed a good deal of it. I fully understand the desire to nominate this absurdly promotional article for deletion, but it looks like he has done major work and received some awards. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - how about blatant copyright violation [23]? An article copy and paste lifted in total from a subject's own web site is no excuse, in fact the added COI makes it worse. Acabashi (talk) 19:49, 12 February 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. -- Lear's Fool 10:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Oppenheim

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

Non-notable composer, reads more like an ad for his equipment. His imdb entry shows that he has only composed stock music for films. Corvus cornix_talk 00:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok with me if you delete this page. It's not correct and I don't need it. Hal Oppenheim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.235.81 (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok, so how do you sign a comment? I am Hal Oppenheim and I would not mind if you deleted this page at all. I don't even know how it got here in the first place —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.235.81 (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You put ~~~~ at the end of your message (or click the 10th button from the left above your message, the one to the immediate left of the horizontal line and two to the left of the #R button). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wp:artist. -- Jeandré, 2011-02-12t08:12z
thank you 12:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.235.81 (talk)

thanks for the deletion76.222.235.81 (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia criteria. Mr. Oppenheim, if you want to know "how it got here in the first place", go to the article and click on the "history" button at the top of the page. It appears that it was created in 2006 by someone using the username "Hal james." --MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 19 February 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) 14:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Horsecastle Chapel

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

I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. — Rod ^talk 09:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an ordinary church and therefore non-notable. St Anselm (talk) 21:36, 4 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, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Usually I would consider churches notable, but this one seem to be a one-congregation only church and as such is not notable. Travelbird (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Checking the Google News, Scholar & Books links fails to find any sign of significant coverage in reliable sources. From a look at Google StreetView, this is clearly a fairly recent building so it's unlikely we're missing important older sources, as would be a worry for a small but ancient parish church. Qwfp (talk) 09:26, 12 February 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 Vellore. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamaraj Nagar, Vellore

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

Non notable neighbourhood. Resembles a fansite. Out of the 5 references given, 3 are Wikipedia articles, the other 2 have nothing about the place mentioned. —Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 13:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 13:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:V. There are no references to support the claims and the census stats used are for a far larger administrative division.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:03, 6 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, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search turns up hundreds of hits for this neighbourhood suggesting it is a defined area and as such is notable. Travelbird (talk) 01:02, 12 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) 14:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to City, but note that the content needs to be wholesale re-written, or severely cut. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:16, 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. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Kultgen

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. His books have won no awards, he is not at the forefront of nor has he created a significant literary movement, he has not been widely cited, etc. Non notable. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of ghits, but nothing at all from serious press. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 5 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, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guideline. Dlabtot (talk) 23:22, 19 February 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) 14:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Varghese Mathai

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

This social activist surely exists, there are some primary references, and a couple of hints in non-reilable sources (the New World blog [24]), and a correction to an article shoved in the middle of this page [25], but I don't see in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources, which is what WP:BASIC requires. Additional sourcing welcome, of course! j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 21:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 5 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, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP + Going strictly be what is claimed in the article: Being a presbyter, or a chairperson of a student club is not going to cut it. Being a presenter on an apparently nn TV programme isn't either. Being the general director of a sunday school programme might just barely, but in absense of reliable sources I'm going to stick with delete. Travelbird (talk) 01:07, 12 February 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) 14:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Miller

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

Non-notable actor with a few minor roles, no reliable sources Corvus cornix_talk 23:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. No significant roles attracting critical attention. -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 7 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, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on grounds of non-notability. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:49, 12 February 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/Maryann Karinch

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varghese Mathai}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Miller}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryann Karinch}}