Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 13

Guide to deletion

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. spa votes carry very little weight Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Rob Potylo

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

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

Delete. The article has been for the most part maintained by Wikipedians whos only edits are for this article. Fails WP:N and WP:MUS. A Google search comes up with his personal website and Wikipedia article. The only other mention I found was for an article on Boston.com. However it discusses the subject's upcoming public access TV program for the New England area. Endlessdan (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - disagree that it fails WP:N. Potylo receives significant coverage in the Boston Phoenix and the Boston Herald in the context of his show. I may not have heard of him but it appears to satisfy the notability guideline. —Tim Pierce (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

His TV show is a local television program in New England. --Endlessdan (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: "In the context of his show" would indicate he wasn't the subject of these local bloggers, and in fact he's not. Strictly a local fellow who fails any of the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER as well as the GNG.  Ravenswing  15:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - GNG doesn't require that he be the primary subject of the coverage. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I don't dispute that he's a local entertainer -- hell, I'm local and I haven't even heard of him -- but GNG doesn't provide an exception for provincialism. I agree, however, that it doesn't pass WP:ENTERTAINER even for a moment. —Tim Pierce (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    • The other point would be "local bloggers." Because a blog is hosted on the Phoenix's website doesn't make it, IMHO, a "reliable source." Were these pieces ever printed in the paper?  Ravenswing  07:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't know, but I also don't see why it's relevant whether it only appeared online or whether it ever appeared in print. The author is a staff writer for the Phoenix and it appears to me to be an official column for the paper, so I'm presuming it's subject to the paper's usual editorial policies. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't actually read the Phoenix in print (does anyone?), but Potylo has been on the cover of a number of print publications, and if not cover stories, at least has been in printed articles. The original Zaino source was linked to an old website, but actually is in the Boston Globe archives.
    • Comment - Also, the original article for the character Robby Roadsteamer was left untouched for ages, despite less impact and coverage. Yet the article for a real person and their character is not allowed? Whether or not someone likes the individual shouldn't determine whether or not they have an article. See also the NPR feature on the show [[1]] & Susan Sloan interview for ABC Chronicle [[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halakahiki82 (talk • contribs) 17:10, May 16, 2011
      • Comment to the Comment - Just because Robby Roadsteamer was left untouched for ages doesn't mean it warranted an article any more than Rob Potylo. It either means that no one noticed the article existed &/or cared to look into its notability. --Endlessdan (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Based on the days edits by the user above, I'm forced to believe he is the article's subject based on some of the trivial information added (what high school he attended).--Endlessdan (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Comment to the Comment That is both untrue and ridiculous. Individual commenters also should not be attacked in discussions on articles. WP:NPOV. Endlessdan is not sticking to the context of whether or not an individual in a post has enough notoriety to retain an entry. The question is: with television, print and electronic coverage, a multi-state broadcast television show, and what could arguably be considered a cult following (true, within MA) is that substantial enough to retain the post. Is there a reason to delete the post other than "I do not like him?" The discussion has come to the point of splitting hairs. Nick Lavallee (comedian) is arguably a local talent as well, should that entry be deleted? Halakahiki82 (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Halakahiki82 talk)
          • Reminder to all concerned to assume good faith until proven otherwise. It is possible that Halakahiki82 is Rob Potylo, but it also seems plausible that they're just an enthusiastic fan, and it would be good not to leap to conclusions. That said, Halakahiki, it's important for the contents of Wikipedia articles to be based on reliable sources, especially for a biography of a living person. You added the high school that Rob Potylo went to but did not include a source for that information, which does raise a valid question about how you know that. Please add sources for your recent edits; that will help resolve some of this. —Tim Pierce (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Comment' Despite the fact that I firmly believe nothing but the content of the article should be discussed, I will address that I am most certainly NOT Rob Potylo. That said, for small High Schools, where does one find actual proof without locating a diploma and scanning it in or something otherwise insane. The original school information came from articles on the web (which, I guess isn't a viable source anymore?) confirming that Potylo, in fact, grew up in Danvers and attended school there as well. It does say on Potylo's facebook account that these schools were attended, but I do understand that information on FB is not reliable. Halakahiki82 (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Halakahiki82 talk)
• Keep - there are also other sites besides the Phoenix that mention Potylo. He gets tons of local coverage and also has been featured on ABC Chronicle for his local tv show. [[3]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halakahiki82 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC) — Halakahiki82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • So in a nutshell: He's a local guy who gets local coverage for his local tv show. --Endlessdan (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    • In a nutshell, yes. —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I am making a list of the things that appear to be notable
  • (Limited Notability) Nomination for "Live Band of the Year" at the Boston Music Awards. A quick glance of this link reveals only a stub
  • Feature on VH1's Best Week Ever (This is unsourced) here: http://www.bestweekever.tv/2005-11-14/he-put-a-baby-in-you/
  • Created Reality Sitcom "Quiet Desperation" (mention on WCVB TV http://www.thebostonchannel.com/video/27398706/detail.html)
  • Said Sitcom was featured on NPR

I have no interest as to whether or not the article is deleted or kept. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - I have covered the comedy scene in Boston since 1998, most notably for the Boston Globe, and have written about Rob Potylo/Robby Roadsteamer several times through the years in the Globe. He's had significant media coverage for an unusual comedy/music career here in Boston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzaino (talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC) — Nzaino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Dictum Contrary to what the user above said, I don't dislike the article's subject. Don't know him and I never heard of him. From the little information found on the web, he seems like someone I would like. However, in all this bickering no one has come up with anything that passes WP:BIO or WP:ENT.

1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.Fail.
2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.Fail.
3. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. - Fail.
4. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Fail. None found.
5. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Fail.

Being a local artist of sorts myself, I can respect the level of coverage he's received in his hometown but none of the links provided or information found in his article tell us that he warrants an encyclopedia article. Sorry. --Endlessdan (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - changing my vote per Endlessdan's updates. I think the article passes WP:GNG (barely) but does not appear to pass the more specific guidelines for entertainers or general biographies. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Rob Potylo is most certainly worthy of an entry. I'm sure you all have "local" celebs (local to Boston is pretty big coverage, actually) who then make it on to "real" TV. This is the case with Rob. He has released dozens of albums, played all over the place for years with a variety of different self-propelled acts, created a web show which he successfully spun into a "real" TV show and created a second show, which is pending but whose pilot is already in the can. He has created events and films his show in such a way as to draw together dozens of other artists, many of whom themselves have Wiki entries. So - hey, what else do you have to do to be considered "legit?" I can cite countless examples of "national" bands who have entries here maintained solely by themselves and their friends, This is not the case with Potylo. Been watching his career for years, ever since he was a DJ on THE (at the time) Boston radio station. So again I ask: Radio, releasing dozens of records, producing hundreds of musical events, creating and starring in two television shows - what else do you need to do? If that's not enough, Wikipedia is useless vs. the printed Encyclopedia. IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George Leroy Tirebiter (talk • contribs) 17:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • — George Leroy Tirebiter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Rob Potylo, as Robby Roadsteamer, has been nominated multiple times for the Boston Music Awards. He does in fact have a cult following in Boston. He regularly is featured in the Boston music press. And his reality sitcom about the Boston music scene features numerous other notable local celebrities. He's not world famous. But I think he meets the notability criteria Zenomax (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability criteria is clearly listed above. He does not meet them at this time. --Endlessdan (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments lean the scales towards delete. Still, some of the content may be merged to other articles, as suggested. Let me know if you need to access the content. Tone 20:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Noam Chomsky

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Criticism of Noam Chomsky
• Articles for deletion/Criticism of Noam Chomsky (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Criticism of Noam Chomsky (3rd nomination)

Criticism of Noam Chomsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is essentially a WP:POVFORK involving a living person.Our WP:BLP policy expressly puts restrictions on Criticism sections and discourages giving them "disproportionate space" This article does just that. Criticism of his Linguistic theory needs to be put in articles on the theories themselves. Criticism of his political views material needs to be integrated into Noam Chomsky's political views. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 13:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete/Merge there's a lot of quotes, most of which could be summarized and eliminated and rolled into the main bio as well as the Noam Chomsky's political views article. ZHurlihee (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep after reviewing the prior deletion discussions, I think the criticisms are notable enough to warrant a separate article. ZHurlihee (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I know at this point I'm getting a little too prolific in this conversation, but the previous keeps were both speedy under snow from before WP:BLP was an established policy. I feel like this is a flimsy justification. i kan reed (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you claiming that WP:BLP was not an established policy in 2008 or 2009? ZHurlihee (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. It is a pov fork. It looks unbalanced and a bit like an attack page, although I know it isn't. Do we have a page called "Achivements of Noam Chomsky"? No. Merge whatever is worth keeping and delete. Szzuk (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Weak delete The page is well sourced, and does give responses to criticism that is also well sourced in most cases. That said, it still exists as a page to attack a living person, and the talk page discussions tend to highlight that fact with a format of "how can I incorporate this criticism I have personally?" type of discussions. The need for this as a seperate page has not really been adequately demonstrated. i kan reed (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, with possible Merge of some content with Noam Chompsky: Terrible MOS precedent. I can't find other "Criticisms of" articles about American political polemicists who are/were peers of Chompsky and are of comparable notability (e.g. "Criticisms of Howard Zinn","Criticisms of William F. Buckley, Jr.", "Criticism of Gore Vidal", "Criticisms of William Safire"). Instead, these criticisms are subsumed within the respective articles--as well they should be to provide NPOV balance. I agree with Szzuk: this article is a POV fork created because someone got fed up with edit warring on the Chompsky page. Also the article contains lengthy block quotes which is poor MOS.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Oy. Check this out: Noam Chomsky's political views. So the Chompsky partisans and the Chompsky detractors each get their own article? Seems kind of silly.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Criticism of articles are dwindling in number for precisely the same reason. Wikispan (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per ZHurlihee. 203.118.185.155 (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Chomsky criticism is hard to summarize within the Chomsky article without looking like an ad-hominem. It deserves its own article to be adequately explained. Ben (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

How is it easier to summarize in a "Criticism of" article without looking like an ad-hominem?--Atlantictire (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that Chomsky criticism consists of critics citing Chomsky's pattern of fabricating and misrepresenting his sources, a great deal of text is required. Such nit-picky and tedious criticisms fall apart when summarized; "X says Chomsky's making stuff up. Chomsky denies this." is completely uninformative. Ben (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That's odd, you managed to describe exactly that in 2 sentences. In fact, trying to communicate such a pattern through a wikipedia article like this falls into 2 no-no categories: unencyclopedic lists, and POV structure of articles. The point shouldn't be to highlight something you find objectionable about Chompsky, but to give an overview of the notable criticisms. As the article stands, it doesn't do a good job of WP:BLP. i kan reed (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Then you should vote to delete. I may have expressed the point poorly, but I stand by my keep. Ben (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a vote. The reason I'm counter-arguing your points is that deletion discussions are driven by consensus. I'd like to hear your counter-arguments to what I've been saying, because standing disagreement doesn't get at the heart of why this should be an article or not. If you feel my interpretation that this article focuses its structure on demeaning a living person and only includes notable criticisms, then please say so, and say why. I don't mind being wrong, but it's not helpful to say my conclusion is wrong without explaining why. i kan reed (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here are my three concerns:

• I watched the Noam Chomsky page pretty closely from 2002 to 2004, back before the fork of the Criticism page. Because most of the editors of the article were big Chomsky fans--and perhaps because Wikipedia's standards were much looser back then--criticism would regularly get edited out through well-intentioned rephrases and summaries that were never quite obviously unacceptable, revert-worthy POV edits. As I wrote at the time, any citation of criticsm of Chomsky gets qualified into "here's a transparently incorrect opinion of some nitwit who disagrees with the Great Man, and more importantly, here's why they're obviously wrong" For examples, see [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. I suspect that it might be particularly instructive to see what happened to the Chomsky and anti-semitism subject after that fork was merged back into the main article. (Mind, the same drift may happen in the Criticism article we're discussing: see the Zerzan section for an example of pro-Chomsky rebuttal taking up more space than is given to the actual criticism.)
• Critics who cite Chomsky's mis-representation of sources are necessarily nit-picky, and representing the substance of their criticisms requires space if it is to be done adequately.
• Chomsky criticism is notable on its own and has a complicated taxonomy which might overwhelm the main article if it were incorporated.

So I'd say that although the criticism article is currently a mess (which was not always the case if I remember correctly) incorporating the criticism article will almost certainly result in a summarization that will be so pro-Chomsky as to not even include prominent critics like Oliver Kamm or Christopher Hitchens. -Ben (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

To quote critic Oliver Kamm: I’m afraid that refutations of Chomsky necessarily are long, because he habitually distorts and fabricates source material, and it requires a close examination of that material to understand how Chomsky works. In this case, where Chomsky makes an extreme assertion without troubling to give a source at all, it requires examining a large amount of material to come to a conclusion.

-Ben (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Problematically, some of what you said supports the idea that this is a POV fork. This article shouldn't exist just because some editors have a problem with incorporating criticism into the Noam Chomsky article. NPOV disputes are a serious issue, but a seperate article to just address Chomsky's faults is a clear violation of WP:POVFORK. No one is trying to alledge that individual criticims are nitpicky, but that in and of itself doesn't justify entire subsections devoted to each one. Driving for the underlying point of WP:DUE, is that these views can be notable, but they don't necessarily need to be presented in detail if they don't represent a major proportion of the whole of published information about the subject(Chomsky in this case). I do understand your point about the taxonomy, however, and that reason I can understand keeping this article if its format were drastically altered to present a less antagonistic format. i kan reed (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, the more I research it for this discussion, the less impressed I am with the Criticism of article. Tucking the criticism off in its own article has kept criticism from being edited out, but it hasn't kept the criticisms from being buried by OR-feeling rebuttals, and it certainly hasn't kept the critics' arguments well organized or well presented. -Ben (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom. Resident Anthropoligist is spot on re this being a POV fork, as well as in his BLP comments.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I guess I'm concerned that this notion of Chompsky as someone who "habitually distorts and fabricates source material" is not widely-held among well-credentialed linguists and historians, but rather is the opinion of his detractors. If the later is true, then an article created--as Ben has said--for the sole purpose of presenting this viewpoint is certainly POV. Christopher Hitchens and Oliver Kamm are both polemicists. Instead of creating a POV fork, it would probably have been better to name Chompsky's most prominent critics and summarize their criticisms of him. If there were incidents that created a scandal--not just an outrage in the minds of the people who dislike Chompsky, but something reported on as a scandal in the media--then that should also be included. Perhaps this process can be done through arbitration with the help of a trusted, seasoned editor.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, there are several different kinds of criticism of Chomsky (please note the lack of a "p"!) and allegations about his issues with sources form only a subset, which is mostly advanced by polemicists. It is particularly hard to summarize, as I've argued, but certainly Zerzan and others do not base their criticism on it in any way. -Ben (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep because this person is known primarily for the controversies and unusual views, as described in this article. This is a legitimate sub-article, just as many other "criticism" articles.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

An interesting point -- Chomsky is not just a linguist; he's also a well-known polemicist, just as many of his critics are. We shouldn't restrict allowed critics of his political writings to just credentialed linguists. -Ben (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, neither Glenn Beck nor Michael Moore developed one of the most influential theories of language acquisition in the field of linguistics, and there's no "Criticism of" page about them. Look, when we learned about Chomsky in my college psychology class, no one made any mention of his politics. If "universal grammar" is controversial then criticisms of that theory belong on that theory's page.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - while he is a public figure and controversial, I do not see this matter as being notable in itself. Two of the problems with POV Forks are that they also tend to be non-notable in themselves, and also lack context, both of which are reasons to delete or even speedily to delete. The criticisms, as it were, make more sense either in the subject's article, or in articles about his theories. Bearian (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• That's a good point, but let's leave the hyperbole out. There's no way this is a legitimate speedy delete candidate. There's plenty of context for a reader to figure out who Noam Chomsky is. i kan reed (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an excellent point. Has there ever been a body of work, a book or documentary, focusing on the criticisms of Noam? Szzuk (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The Anti-Chomsky Reader. ZHurlihee (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete This article is clearly a POV fork, and has no place here. Any relevant material can easily be included in Noam Chomsky or Noam Chomsky's political views. RolandR (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

List of iCarly parodies

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

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

A substantially similar version of this page was previously speedily deleted as a copyright violation of http://icarly.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Parodies -- however, this seems to have been an invalid reason, because the iCarly wikia uses a Creative Commons license compatible with Wikipedia's. On the other hand, the other, non-copyright-based reasons discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of parodies in iCarly still appear to be valid reasons to delete the page. Basically, this is a list of non-notable fake product names used in a television show (the show itself is notable, but its fake product names are not). Because the previous AfD was cut short on copyvio grounds, and should have been allowed instead to proceed to a full deletion, I am requesting deletion of this page. Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as there's no indication of why this list of random information is notable (WP:LIST), also trivia is discouraged. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Could be all madeup for all I know, no refs, nobody will every reference it either. The topic isn't notable never mind the individual parodies. Szzuk (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• delete no third party coverage of the topic in reliable sources and unlikely to ever have coverage. Fails WP:N. In addition it is all original research with users having determined what product/company etc is being "parodied". Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Trivial WP:TRIVIA. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was incubate at WP:Article Incubator/William "Billy" Smith. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 02:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

William "Billy" Smith

William "Billy" Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Makes a claim that would easily satisfy WP:NSPORTS, but I'm unable to confirm that he exists at all. Happy to withdraw the nomination if proof of his existance and top level rugby league experience is able to be found. The common name and sharing it with an Australian RL player from the 60s/70s doesn't help. The-Pope (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep.. I'm happy to assume good faith. I know people do make up strange stuff but it looks like a proper person, so no reason for me to assume otherwise. Szzuk (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I've often posted about the "spirit" of WP:NSPORTS, in that it, in my opinion, sets a level at which we can assume that sufficient refs to meet WP:GNG are likely to exist somewhere. However, it assumes that you have some ref, maybe not significant coverage, maybe not independent or maybe even not a reliable source, that at least backs up the claim of playing at that level. In this case, I can't even find that. Then we come to the whole WP:V, WP:BLP rules and the WP:URBLP/WP:URBLPR tasks - should they apply to a 105 year old? Again, the rules say yes, so the onus is to provide sources, not just accept it. The-Pope (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I struggle with the guidelines like you do. The thing with afd's is that they do sometimes 'allow' a keep. I said keep mostly because with such a common name and the time past, in my opinion refs are hiding in local newspapers and books that might never get on the net. I will have a look to see if I can find anything, if I were in St Helens I could go to the club and I reckon I'll find he played 200+ times and would pass Nsports quite comfortably. Szzuk (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the ref was good enough but others can confirm or otherwise. With players this old the burden of verifiability seems quite high. There must be hundreds of sports people who are worthy of a page but won't get one through lack of sources. Szzuk (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As there is no deadline, and verifiability is a key policy, waiting until there are decent sources isn't a problem. And lots of sports, Cricket, Australian rules football, NFL, most big soccer clubs and many more, have very extensive coverage of even much older players than this, both online and offline. The-Pope (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, but recreate if verified. Unfortunately, people have written plausible-sounding hoax articles in the past. Verifiability is necessary to stop this, otherwise it's too easy to feed in disinformation if you know. Happy to assume the article creator acted in good faith unless proven otherwise, but that doesn't extend to giving disputed unverified info in Wikipedia the benefit of the doubt. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  I'd say the ref was good enough to establish notability? Szzuk (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, I'd still say the lack of reliability of the source and uncertainty it's the same Smith still isn't enough to solve the verifiability problem. As it appears this is the best the internet has to offer, I think this is a problem that will only be solved with a trip to a local library. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been mentioned at the WikiProject Rugby league discussion page. The-Pope (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete – If there is no source to verify his notability, I don't see why the article should be kept. We as a project are trying to take care of all the unreferenced BLPs, after all. If he can be shown to meet WP:NSPORTS, I'll switch to a keep. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete – Would pass NSPORTS and the rugby league WikiProject's own notability guidelines, but there are no references so should be deleted anyway. Just checked Rugby League Project for William Smith and counldn't find anything, although I'm sure the article was made in good faith and RLP is by no means an exhaustive source. GW(talk) 23:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet one of our core policies, WP:V. Also happy to switch to keep if a ref is found to verify that he played rugby league at the top level. Jenks24 (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Undecided - might be one to leave for a bit and come back to if nothing more reliable can be found. Looks promising though - good work those concerned. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• I found him. I googled for Foster (his friend) and Smith. He played and scored for Bradford Northern in the Yorkshire Cup Final in 1942. I will update the article with the ref. It'd be a bit mean spirited to delete him as the article is actually correct... [12] Szzuk (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• If the ref actually had his first name or it was an unusual surname, I'd agree with you, but just mentioning a Smith surely isn't sufficient.The-Pope (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep as per the reference found, although the page does need some work. Mattlore (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the Saints Heritage Site the only two possibles I could find were [13] and [14] but neither are very definitive. Mattlore (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I had another look for refs but can't find much else. Hmmm. Might ask on the bradford or st helens forums assuming there are some. Szzuk (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Regardless of keep or delete, can we remove the WP:BLP tag from this article? He would be 105 if he were still alive, making it unlikely, but not impossible, that he continues to shuffle along this mortal coil. Pburka (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I can answer my own question. According to Category:Living People we don't presume people are dead until 123 years. Presumably this is based on the longest known postdiluvian human lifespan. Pburka (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: If this does end up leaning towards delete can we instead make use of the Article Incubator? Mattlore (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  Incubate would be a reasonable thing to do. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. — Scientizzle 13:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bernie Mac Show

The Bernie Mac Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Blatant hoax. We all know this is really Danny Bhoy's Normandy Park with a few words changed MCDoubleDefDP (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• STRONG Keep Bad faith request for deletion. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Steven Notman

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

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

Contested PROD. PROD concern was: "Has not played in a fully professional league, so does not pass the football player notability guideline and does not have significant coverage in reliable sources, so does not pass the general notability guideline." Since the PROD a few references have been added, but the only one that could be considered significant coverage was in the Border Telegraph, a local newspaper from what I can tell. Jenks24 (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I think. He's had a wee bit more coverage than that (this and this), but none of it particularly significant and Berwick don't satisfy the notability guidelines at WP:NFOOTY, so I think he probably has to go despite under-19 (or 21) appearances for Scotland. Cup appearances that seem to indicate he played for Hibs seem to be for Berwick - this source suggests he played for the first team but none of the standard databases agree, although I can find some reference to a pre-season friendly or two so they must be those appearances I think and he certainly warmed the bench against Celtic at least once. So it's probably a delete - not enough for GNG in my book just now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 14:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. He has played no higher than the fourth tier of Scottish football. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there is enough media coverage of Steven Notman to justify him having a place on the encyclopedia. He has featured in matchday squads for Hibernian in the Scottish premier League and CIS Insurance cup, has played a number of matches for Scotland at various age levels, played in a live Sky Sports match for Berwick Rangers against Celtic this season, and is very well known regionally in the Scottish Borders and beyond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.59.234 (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That may be true. If you can show us where we can find reliable and verifiable sources to show that sort of thing then it would be grand. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Cinergy Independent Film Services Pvt Ltd

Cinergy Independent Film Services Pvt Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No sources cited to show that this company is notable per WP:CORP. I originally tagged for no sources and notability, but author removed tags without explanation and without adding any sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Meghan Chavalier

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Meghan Chavalier
• Articles for deletion/Meghan Chavalier (2nd nomination)

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

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

Delete - she wasn't notable the first time her article was deleted and she isn't notable now. Does not meet general notability and does not pass WP:PORNBIO. Should have been deleted as reposted material but speedy deletion was disputed. Harley Hudson (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 15 May 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) 01:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comments from an IP that were typed directly into the article itself: I'm not sure why Wikipedia is always trying to delete this page about Meghan Chavalier. She is one of the most famous transsexuals in the world. Is Wikipedia homophobic? They don't have any problem with Jenna Jameson's page and Meghan Chavalier has written 2 books and released 2 music CDS available on Itunes, Amazon and everywhere else in the world. Get over it Wikipedia even transsexuals can be famous, believe it or not. I will never donate another dime to your website. Try Googling her...maybe that will help in your decision for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.184.0.173 (talk • contribs) moved from article to AfD page by LadyofShalott 09:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Famous" is not the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:NOTABILITY is, which must be established through independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the subject. The existence of a thriving LGBT Wikiproject and the well-populated Category:Transgender and transsexual people belies any accusation of institutionalized homophobia or transphobia. Harley Hudson (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep winner of adult awards and notable as a writer as well.Nirame (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• She has received one "Tranny Award", a non-notable award created by a private pornographic studio, and there are no reliable sources that indicate that her self-published books are notable or that she is known as an author. Harley Hudson (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly fails the GNG, zero GNews hits, all GBooks hits are either compiled from Wikipedia pages or the subject's own self-published books. Fails WP:PORNBIO and all other relevant SNGs. The claimed award is actually a website poll (with unverifiable results) conducted by a porn studio the subject works for, and is neither independent nor significant; it's in the nature of an "Employee of the Month"-type award. While the article claims the subject has appeared in "feature films," there's zero supporting evidence on this point, and one identified film, "TV Cowboy", turns out never to have been released, according to the subject's own website. Virtually all the references are either pages controlled by the article subject or similar promotional pages. There's just nothing out there to support this article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. spa votes cary very littke weight and there appears to be no sourcing on which to hang a merge Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

USA Publications

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

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

Non-notable student publication. Google hits is 8 including Wikipedia results. Revision before I removed some non-notable sections (I thought it was notable then) Moray An Par (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The article fails to meet the guidelines of WP:GNG. There is already some discussion of the corps in the article for the paper they publish, and other than that paper, they do not seem to do much that is anything close to noteworthy. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. A student newspaper. I remember them well, universally non notable. Szzuk (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to University of San Agustin. No notability independent of the university, but potentially a worthwhile element of the university article. --Orlady (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Don't Delete. I would like to defend our school publication's page. We are still compiling the whole article. As to our references, we are doing our best to look for valid references. Our alumni has reached different parts of the world; but since the USA Publications page in Wikipedia is new, of course we still have a low number of hits. Thank you for understanding. Adrian attacks. 14 May 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC).

  Then please do defend it. Please tell us how it agrees with the notability guidelines. Moray An Par (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• The Augustinian Mirror should be redirected in this page. Since the USA Publications is the publisher of The Augustinian Mirror, I would like to suggest that the latter page be nominated for deletion and that the USA Publications page remain. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian attacks (talk • contribs) 08:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  I have listed the page as per your request. The discussion is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Augustinian Mirror. Szzuk (talk) 08:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  Don't Delete. First, I would like to thank Szzuk for nominating The Augustinian Mirror Page for deletion. The USA Publications should remain a page. I have already merged the information and references from The Augustinian Mirror page with the USA Publications page. I am also trying to compile more references so that the data is the page will be verifiable. Again, Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian attacks (talk • contribs) 08:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  Don't Delete. As to notability, the materials published by the USA Publications reach selected schools throughout the country, the National Library of the Philippines, the Vatican (as stated in the article). Some alumni are also notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian attacks (talk • contribs) 09:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  Please don't forget to sign your comments. That is adding four tildes (~~~~) after your statements. As for your sources, please present them soon or your contributions might go to waste when an administrator determines that this discussion has reached consensus. As for the alumni, notability is not inheritable per WP:INHERIT. Reading other invalid reasons for notability in that page might also interest you. Moray An Par (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. I acknowledge what Moray An Par has to say. Our publication will do its best to provide non-bias information and quality references soon. The publication, I believe meets WP:NGO standards since the publication won national competitions in the past. The publication also conducts community works that lead to national development.Adrian attacks (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark

Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Episode #5 in the Great Greek Revolution in Wikipedia – a revolution that comes rather late, given that the Greek Monarchy was formally abolished by plebiscite in 1974 and at least as of as of 2007 it was clear that not all Pokémon characters are notable. As for her younger siblings, this article does not claim notability and I could find no evidence that she is notable. Per our notability guidelines (the real ones, not the imaginary ones sometimes mentioned by Wikipedia's contingent of royalty watchers), just being the grand child of a deposed monarch does not make someone notable. Precedents:

• WP:Articles for deletion/Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark
• WP:Articles for deletion/Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark
• WP:Articles for deletion/Prince Odysseas-Kimon of Greece and Denmark
• WP:Articles for deletion/Prince Aristidis-Stavros of Greece and Denmark

Follow the links if you want to see policy-based arguments or heated discussions. Hans Adler 09:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Hans Adler 09:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: The culture of stamp- and Pokémon-collecting in Wikipedia is not the subject's fault. I have seen photos of her, on which she looks like a nice and sensible teenage girl. I have no reason to insult her and I don't think I have done that. And of course the inevitable outcome of this AfD will not prevent anyone from creating a proper article for her if and when she becomes notable. But for the moment we fortunately don't have reason to assume that she will become a notorious socialite. Hans Adler 15:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The subject is a princess of more than one country and so her standing in Greece is not vital. She is notable, being covered in detail in sources such as Real Princesses. Pokemon seem quite irrelevant - the only reason for mentioning them seems to be to insult the subject. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not a forum and so the nominator should not being using this as a platform for his anti-royalist views. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and noting that the "source" cited above by C.W. is not the type of reliable coverage we would need to establish notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete due to the precedents cited by the nom under which the articles about all of her brothers were deleted. However, this deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation if she becomes notable in the future (for example, as the kind of socialite frequently featured in Vanity Fair (magazine)). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and per Metrpolitan90's comment.IrishStephen (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• delete - a redirect to Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece should suffice here.--Scott Mac 16:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Many, although not all, Wikiepdians have long felt that all royalty are notable automatically (including me). In this case, however, a merger to Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece probably should be good enough compromise for all of these articles. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 09:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Mondo (film)

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

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

No verifiable sources for this article. The only sources the article cites are self-published sources (see WP:SPS). I have tried doing searches, but all that I can find are more self-published sources, and no verifiable sources. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The nominator needs to know that there exists a site named IMDB. And the references cited are not self published sources, but rather an article from the San Francisco Chronicle and IMDB for its plot synopsis. I think one can find more writeups on warfares such as this than the article pages, going by the way this nominator is hellbent on raising such alarms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorathan (talk • contribs) 09:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The nominator's claim that the citations are insufficient would then have to call for deletion of many other wikipedia pages for movies which cite only their IMDB pages and sometimes, rotten tomatoes pages as reference. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorathan (talk • contribs) 10:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Manorathan (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Manorathan (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Full length reviews in multiple sources, including NYT, NY Daily News, and boston globe. Please read WP:BEFORE ^Bongo_matic 10:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep enough of reliable references.--Diameter (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as well--and if the nominator doesn't withdraw soon, then I call for SNOW. Thanks Bongo, and thanks MQS also, Drmies (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy SNOW Keep per a deletion nomination that seems to unfortunately show a lack of WP:BEFORE. It was not the least bit difficult to find that this film has had international distribution and significant coverage in multiple of multiple of reliable sources[15] over a many-years period. We do not delete notable topics out of a nominator's lack of diligent before. I urge the nominator to re-familiarize himself with WP:DEL#REASON, WP:DEL#CONTENT, and WP:DEL#PROCESSES Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawn Inks.LWC (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 20:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

R. Raj Rao

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

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

The author is not notable per WP:AUTHOR. The only award he has received is a newly created award which I could find nothing about on the Internet other than on pages about the author himself. The article claims he is a "leading" gay rights activist in India, but the source makes no such claim. It is my view that the subject fails the qualifications of WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR Inks.LWC (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. "Keep" added by Drmies--that's how I read this contribution. The nominator needs some reworking on his definitions. Googling 'Quebec-India Awards' brings this link, <http://mediarelations.concordia.ca/pressreleases/archives/2008/01/quebecindia_visiting_scholar_a.php> at the very first page. As anyone can infer, this is an academic program, and one of the references in the wiki page, <http://cjournal.concordia.ca/archives/20080214/international_interdisciplinarity.php>, was infact an article on him and the other candidate who was selected for the award that year. And on his definitions of 'leading', kindly check the reference for that. With the amount of gay activism that is on in India, for an individual who has started a coursework on Queer studies in a very conservative Pune University and his contributions to the queer scene, that reference was lauding the same, and rightly so. The nominator is nothing less than a vandal in raising such false alarms without proper verification, leave aside the intention to improve the article, which should be his purpose! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorathan (talk • contribs) 09:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. "Keep" added by Drmies--that's how I read this contribution. He is indeed a leading gay rights activist. If you want some other source also quoting the same please visit penguins author profile! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunafish9 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Manorathan (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Manorathan (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Manorathan (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Manorathan (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Not a notable figure enough to be kept in wiki.The award isn't an acclaimed award and there are thousands of authors in penguin.A publisher uploads profile given by it's authors.--117.211.84.226 (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per recent expansion. Article really needs a lot of cleanup, but the writer is clearly notable. I urge the nominator and the IP to look at it again and perhaps allow the nomination to be withdrawn. Note to article creator: perhaps the nominator got it wrong, but please assume good faith. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Author clearly notable in India, therefore article is notable. HairyWombat 15:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable now that its sources have been upgraded. There are certainly "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" if you bother to look around. There's enough material to expand the entry, including his own characterization of himself as not an activist these days but more an engaged writer. Bmclaughlin9 (talk)
• Keep and props to those who practiced diligent WP:BEFORE. Being sourcably notable in India is perfectly fine with en.Wikipeda. Article will benefit from additional cleanup, but notable topics rarely merit deletion because they simply need a little attention. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inks.LWC (talk • contribs) 21:03, May 16, 2011

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Robert Sherwin

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

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

Article written by the son of the subject. No evidence of notability. Refs are poor, mostly from his own company or from Wikipedia. Dmol (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. I un-tagged this as a speedy delete. I hesitated because he won a Frances Pomeroy Naismith Award. However, looking at Wikipedia:Notability (sports) this is not enough to establish notability--he hasn't "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" or "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". He doesn't have any other notability assertions, so, delete. --Fang Aili ^talk 22:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. The article needs substantial work, and it appears there is a COI issue with much of the content. That said, Sherwin appears to satsify WP:GNG based on his having received non-trivial coverage in mainstream media. Examples include: (1) Sherwin Receives $1,000 Scholarship, The Evening News - Apr 12, 1973; (2) Army's Sherwin Is Top Shorty, The Free Lance-Star - Mar 27, 1973; (3) Sherwin Receives Short Man Honor, Gadsden Times - Mar 28, 1973; (4) Named Recipient, The Robesonian, March 27, 1973. Cbl62 (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've removed much of the unnecessary, unsourced and COI material. I've also added a number of additional sources to the article. This appears to be a clear keep at this point. Cbl62 (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - The Pomeroy Naismith Award makes him notable from a college basketball standpoint. Rikster2 (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per Rikster2. He was the recipient of a national award at the highest level of amateur basketball in the United States (an award presented by the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, no less). I'll admit the creator should have been more discreet about being related to Robert Sherwin as to avoid COI, but at the end of the day the man in question satisfies GNG as well as college athlete notability criteria. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Meets Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#College_athletes by having won the Frances Pomeroy Naismith Award, a major college basketball award. —Bagumba (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Equipo 2

Equipo 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced article about a minor film project of dubious notability. Part of a self-promotional "walled garden" around an individual called José-María Siles, all created by members of the same sockfarm. (See above Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anews and older Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José-María Siles). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. no refs, never will be. Szzuk (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Some improvements were made. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

AnandTech

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

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

Article beset by so many problems (see giant template) that it's probably best deleted. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable, with millions of unique visitors. I've used it myself. So the article is crap, that isn't a reason to delete, it needs fixing. Szzuk (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep AfD is not for cleanup. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is. Especially for NPOV/SPAM issues. Take the unsourced lead sentence for instance "AnandTech is one of the largest online computer hardware journals in the English-speaking world." What does that even mean? Largest number of articles, readers, or what? The only sourced statement in this entire article is that it has a large number of users and forum posts. (And it's not large compared to Facebook in that respect.) Presumably forum posts don't count as articles, and users don't count as authors. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    • No it's not. You didn't bother to check whether this is a notably website yourself and you're wasting our time. Szzuk (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Not according to WP:BEFORE and the deletion policy. Perhaps we need to look into making WP:BEFORE a guideline or maybe even part of the deletion policy itself?
• Keep I have added a paragraph with quotes from independent experts such as Leo Laporte and Paul McFedries describing AnandTech, and have backed up those quotes with four references from independent, reliable sources demonstrating this website's notability. Cullen328 (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Anews

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

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

Minor news agency of dubious notability. Article created recently by apparent sock, from a long-active sockfarm that has been busy promoting the journalist who is reported to be the director of this company (cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José-María Siles) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 15 May 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) 01:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can as well be merged, The result is not a delete, so closing this. Tone 20:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hugo Pinell

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

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

Fluff article about marginally notable felon. More pertinent details surrounding his notability exist in several parent articles. ZHurlihee (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to San Quentin Six. Pinell was involved in one of the longest and most notable trials in California history, however, I don't think he has any mainstream notability outside the escape attempt and the subsequent trial. Mini-biographies of the various inmates should be hosted at San Quentin Six. Location (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The details of why is prison don't really fit in the San Quentin Six page. He is widely mentioned in news stories (74 Ghits), books (160) and articles (15), which are enough to sustain notability. Several of these appear to have longer sections on him (e.g. [16] but unfortunately I don't have access to the full book. Finally, I would suggest that the use of the term like fluff article shows a certain lack of detachment in the nominator, whose contributions appear to be largely restricted to attempting to defend right wing figures and attacking left wing ones, which leads me to worry a little a bit bias. Francis Bond (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF. I would be more than happy to defend any edit I have made. ZHurlihee (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - per Francis Bond.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 03:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Why the repeated relisting when nobody but the nominator has called for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

List of people with the given name Sarah or Sara

List of people with the given name Sarah or Sara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per WP:NOTDIR, which prohibits "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." I fail to see how being called "Sarah or Sara" is a significant enough connection between these people for there to be a listing of them. A listing of all people named Sarah would be too long to be navigationally useful, and unlikely to be used. Special:PrefixIndex/Sarah and Special:PrefixIndex/Sara can be used to list all the people named Sarah/Sara who have articles, and do not require to be updated. Anthem of joy (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Anthem of joy (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep and turn into a disambiguation page (or merge with one if one already exists). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Only persons known by the name Sarah alone (cf. "Elvis") should be on the disambiguation page Sarah (disambiguation), see MOS:DABNAME. These full names are mostly not ambiguous, and any that are should have separate DAB pages like Sarah Thomas. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Merge back to Sarah (given name). Apparently split on 15 December 2008 (along with List of fictional characters named Sarah or Sara, also at AfD), but no edit summary was used. See [17] --Tothwolf (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge MBisanz ^talk 09:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge per Tothwolf. WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete and DO NOT Merge - per original nomination, has no utility and violates NOT#DIR with no justification. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a directory of loose items around a random name. That's what search engines are for - frankieMR (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete prohibited list per WP:NOTDIR. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. I used to argue for lists of most notable people with a name, within Anthroponymy articles; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Archive 6 if you can be bothered. Now I acknowledge that popular names result in a hopeless case that can never be comprehensive, nor have consensus on selection. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

David J. Sosnowski

David J. Sosnowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No assertion of notability, almost completely unsourced (there's one link to his web site). WP:BEFORE doesn't bring up anything useful -- only 81 Ghits (page 9 is the last one), nothing in GNews or GScholar. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I've failed to find any mention of him or his work in reliable independent sources, let alone in-depth or significant coverage. CDs and scores are self-published, and observe the upper left hand side of his website. Below his one-sentence 'biography' we find: "See the Wikipedia article here for more on David Sosnowski." Comprehensively fails the criteria at WP:COMPOSER and WP:BIO and blatant self-promotion. Voceditenore (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Classical music and WikiProject Composers. – Voceditenore (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per Voceditenore. Couldn't have said it better.4meter4 (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Yup, this is an attempt to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete The only thing I wonder is how this article stayed up for six years. Sosnowski has gained far more than his rightful share of publicity through it, and should be very grateful that it took this long for him to be "caught". Chillowack (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant self-promotion. Perhaps it has escaped attention so far because of confusion with the novelist David Sosnowski, though frankly the subject of that article doesn't look overly noteworthy, either.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

His WP article is refreshingly terse but the novelist would probably pass as AfD See [18]. Voceditenore (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wait Efforts to improve the article are recently in progress. Perhaps it would be indicated to wait and see what develops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.183.38 (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The discussion will run until the 20th -- you have that long to demonstrate that the article fits into the policies and guidelines here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced (except for link to his website) vanity publication.--Hokeman (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment In email contact with the subject of the article seeking further detail, he declined to provide assistance, commenting: "While the gesture is kindly appreciated, I cannot think of any surpassing reason I would belong in an encyclopedia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.183.38 (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • If Sosnowski himself doesn't feel he deserves a Wikipedia page, then whoever is frantically adding Notes and References at the end of the article might wish to reconsider the effort. Chillowack (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• <redacted by Voceditenore (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)> Chillowack (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep, Withdrawn by nominator. Safiel (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

List of drum makes

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

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

As I propose this AfD, I am not hell bent on having this article deleted, but as I reviewed it, I was wondering "Do we need this list?" There are existing lists on Guitars and Flutes that have evidently never been PROD'ed or AfD'd, but in their cases, at least some of the companies on the list had separate articles, which is not the case with this article. There does not seem to be an encyclopedic point or purpose with this list. Again not hell bent on deleting this, but I think a discussion is warranted. Safiel (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject seems clearly notable - just think of all the reviews in publications like Drum Magazine. Also, some of the companies listed are also clearly notable, e.g. Yamaha Drums. However, at the moment it looks like it fails WP:DIRECTORY. I think the way to fix this should be to add prose, rather than deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia includes lots of lists - some of which are far more specialised than this:- see List of timpani manufacturers or List of marimba manufacturers. It states it is a list, so the only prose neede would be a one or 2 line introduction - it does need Wikifying - with internal links, removal of random use of CAPITALS, etc. Arjayay (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Userfy with the instruction that it is to be reduced to those makes which already have articles here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with the suggestion that the list should only include makers who already have an article. This is not a requirement on other lists e.g. List of timpani manufacturers or List of marimba manufacturers. Happy to agree that makers who do not have already an article need a WP:RS Arjayay (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note This is a very new article, and it has actually gone a long way in a very short period of time. I agree with your sentiment, but there actually already IS a source for the complete list at the bottom of the page. Part of the problem may be that this AFD was started just 5 hours after the article was created. I am assuming good faith on the AFD, I just think the nom is mistaken in his assumption. The nom admits in the actual nomination that he isn't sure "if we need this", which technically, isn't a valid reason to start an AFD to begin with. The basic premise of the nom is to just test the waters, which again, is not the best reasons to nominate for AFD. Good faith, absolutely, but not necessarily the best reasons to nom. The article is actually moving along and getting improved at a rate much faster than the majority of articles on Wikipedia. I tagged it one minute after creation (refs) which was promptly fixed. Seriously, this is a huge list, so I'm not disappointed with the effort that has been put into it so far. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I've been tagging and following it as it has developed, and it is moving along fine. This is a very reasonable use of lists, it is being actively sourced, and the subject matter is perfectly notable. And there is no criteria that requires that the list contain only items that have articles here. To the contrary, it wouldn't make much sense at all as clearly there are many other articles that need creating. As long as the list is properly sourced, this would be draconian. There is no WP:DEADLINE, and it can be improved over time. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Withdrawal by Nominator I am going to withdraw this nomination, as clearly the consensus will be for keep. I was kind of hesitating to nominate it in the first place, as can probably be inferred from my remarks in my original nomination. Anyhow, I will go ahead and close this. Safiel (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yankee killer

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Yankee killer
• Articles for deletion/Yankee killer (2nd nomination)

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

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

This is not a notable term. Whenever someone seems to do well against the Yankees, some beat writer invariably calls him a "Yankee killer", but there is no definition of what makes one a "Yankee killer". – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. It does have an astonishingly high number of references in ghits, gnews, gbooks, and seems to have been a common name for some ballplayers such as Frank Lary[19][20] and Lew Burdette[21] among others. There is a 2003 NY Post article here about "The Yankee Killers", which describes what it is all about.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is just about the expression "Yankee killer." There is no real information on what a Yankee killer is like, although I am sure they are good baseball players. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per concerns about Wikipedia being a dictionary. Additionally, every team in baseball has players that they consider to be "Team Killers." This phenomenon is hardly limited to the Yankees. And, for all I know, the phenomenon is not even limited to baseball (I'm a baseball fan to the exclusion of most other sports). Finally, I have no idea why there needs to be a separate article on this -- if indeed the content ought to exist in the first place. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge to Glossary of baseball (Y) It is pretty much a a dictionary definition, but it's for a term that has been quite popular in the baseball press. We have a place for such things. -Dewelar (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Definitely support that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm curious as to what exception to the "wikipedia is not a dictionary" argument the "Glossary of Baseball" article falls under, for those who think such an argument might have any applicability to this phrase -- which has not only a dictionary definition (already), but also a contextual discussion. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is a question best asked/researched at WikiProject Glossaries. There's been quite a bit of discussion about this over the years. -Dewelar (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• The reason I asked it here was that I'm puzzled as to how editors here can apply that principle to one and not the other, and was wondering what their thinking was.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• In other words, what you're really asking is "why are lists treated differently than articles?" How much time have you got ;-) ? -Dewelar (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• I guess I'm just unfamiliar with a rule that says that this would be fine embedded in a glossary but not in an article. I'm not sure that NOTADICTIONARY applies in the first place, given the contextual and other treatment of the term in the article, but I'm trying to get at the rationale that is inspiring those that are troubled by the entire bit as an article, but not troubled by the entire bit being in the glossary. I'm missing something -- to me, it seems a distinction without a difference; to my knowledge we apply the same notability rules to both.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• I wouldn't expect the entirety of the article to be merged. Probably no more than the first sentence. -Dewelar (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• What encyclopaedic articles afford, and dictionary articles do not, is the rich background and history that this article contains. It is the short, nothing-more, dictionary explanations that the rule seeks to shunt to wiktionary. The more fulsome treatment we have here, however, is what differentiates it from wiktionary.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is indeed the applicable guideline. But we have to read beyond the title. As the guideline states: "encyclopedias contain definitions." The rule cautions against one-word definitions, and the like. But it makes quite clear that "Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description ... but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns." That describes the difference. Here, the article already reflects a bevy of facts about its usage; it is not by any means limited to one-word definitions and linguistic concerns. It is just the sort of article that the guideline indicates is appropriate for wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• What the article contains, beyond the definition itself, is a list of examples that demonstrate the definition. That doesn't qualify as "other types of information". -Dewelar (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• The guideline tells us which definitions are appropriate for wp. And which are not. The contrast under the guideline is between a) bare definitions, such as "killer -- someone who kills"; and b) encyclopedia articles, which begin with a definition and description of the topic, but "provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns. A definition aims to describe or delimit the meaning of some term." This clearly goes beyond the bare definition. It as the guideline calls for provides "other types of information about the topic as well". The one sentence you are in favor of -- that is the bare definition, that is not appropriate for wp. The 90 per cent of the article that you would delete -- that is replete with all the facts -- as distinct from the "linquistic concerns" -- that make it appropriate for wp.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• I refer you to the MoS entry on types of lists, which states "Glossaries contain a small working vocabulary and definitions for important, unique or frequently encountered concepts, usually including idioms or metaphors particular to a subject area." Thus, bare definitions are exactly what a glossary is meant to contain. -Dewelar (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• I hear you, Dewelar. If this were merely a bare one-sentence definition (rather than the much more fact-rich article that it is), I now understand that that would be a good place to park it. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• You're welcome. I do think you'd agree, also, that it would be better than deleting it outright, which is what I would support if the merging concept is rejected. As I mentioned, my opinion is that all the facts present are simply supportive of the definition and not providing any additional substance; i.e., it presents statistical and anecdotal evidence of why certain players were called "Yankee killer" rather than focusing on the notability of the nickname itself. Such information should be merged to the articles for the individual players (which could, perhaps, be linked in the glossary entry) rather than used to pad out this article to make it look like more than it is. -Dewelar (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes -- I agree that deletion is especially uncalled for, and more draconian. I would also note that the nom's appropriate and accurate complaint in the nomination about the article lacking a definition has now been recognized and addressed. My view (and where we differ) is that the usage history facts and the like that are in the article are precisely the sort of "other types of information about the topic as well" called for by the guideline.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, even on Wikipedia, reasonable people are allowed to disagree ;-) . -Dewelar (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I recognize that we've had a somewhat scattered response to this AFD nom so far. One D, one d/m, one m, and one keep. Much has to do with a reading of wp:wikipediaisnotadictionary, and a determination as to whether the definitions that that guideline indicates are appropriate include this one. Accordingly, I've left word at that guideline page talkpage, as well as a rescue tag. Hopefully, further views will provide a clearer consensus in one direction or another.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 00:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Just click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. Read the titles of the newspaper articles that appear in the first page of results. Yankee Killer is a real thing, and it gets coverage. This isn't just a brief definition either, but an entire article about the term. Dream Focus 00:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG in failing to have multiple sources each with significant coverage to demonstrate notability of the term Yankee killer. Many of the sources usage of the term is WP:ROUTINE, not going into any in-depth coverage of the player's history of being a "Yankee killer" or putting it into historical context with other players. The use of the term is mostly a generic moniker, adding killer after an opponent's name, and contains no obvious notability. Simply looking at WP:GOOGLEHITS without looking at the quality of the results is not justification for keeping an article. —Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:GNG -- sources do not "address the subject directly in detail". This term seems to be simply a convenient 'hook' for discussing pitchers that did particularly well against the Yankees. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to Boston Red Sox. Actually we should probably delete it: clearly it exists, but I don't think the concept itself has gotten enough detailed coverage to justify a stand-alone article. We could note on the individual players pages that sportswriters have described them as such though. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Bookatable

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

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

I have searched for reliable sources to establish notability and have only turned up press releases and company promotional materials. This appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 May 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) 01:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Small dotcom company. No refs. Stupid idea. Will go bust. I love the internet but can't imagine a time any time soon when I'd book a table using it. Szzuk (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as commercial spam. Carrite (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Kanchana (2011 Kannada film)

Kanchana (2011 Kannada film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable film not yet filming. Fails WP:NOTFILM. PROD removed by article creator. ttonyb (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also, no reliable sources to verify anything in the article. No prejudice against re-creation once the film is released. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete filming hasnt begin yet.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 17:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD A7. The article did not make any particular claims of notability.. Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Nick Theodossi

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

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

The only claim of notability in the article is, "Nick is also well known for his passion with the Australian Football League (AFL)." which is uncited and of questionable notability. Otherwise his affiliation with the car dealership does not confer notability WP:INHERIT, even if the car dealership is notable (which it is certainly not clear it is). ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete non notable buisnessperson and per nom. Doh5678 Talk 06:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

LightStream

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

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

Page contains little or no information LES 953 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.

• Delete. Article is about a former business (current brand?) that made computer networking equipment. The business was acquired by Cisco in the mid-1990s. Google News has a fair amount of press release hits, mostly announcing the acquisition or new products. Books entries seem similar, and are again mostly from 1993-1997. All of this goes to show you that this kind of business has to make a particularly strong showing to establish long term historical notability, and that a flurry of minor coverage of products in the years it was independently active should not be enough. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Once notable, always notable. If the business passes notability, being defunct doesn't matter. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - per Smerdis of Tlön: no significant coverage, nothing of encyclopedic value to add to the article.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment It would be helpful if someone would cite the best of the refs for this company. There have been bands, water disinfection companies, and movie companies with the same or similar names, so Google News archive is a bit confusing. Press coverage does not have to continue to the present for an entity to be notable. Was there ever multiple instances of significant coverage of the subject of this article in reliable and independent sources? Edison (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Active or defunct, notability is not temporary. Long term historical notability is a laughable thought exercise, not a criteria for inclusion set by policy. riffic (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep based on a cursory check for sources, two of which I've added to the article as citations. riffic (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 03:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

---

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} 00:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - No historical value, not enough notability facts other than being acquire by a notable company and notability is not inherited; Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 01:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources citing BBN Technologies being a founding player advances a certain notability that any other run of the mill company couldn't claim. riffic (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to The Principle of Moments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Principle Of Moments Tour

Principle Of Moments Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per WP:CONCERT, non-notable tours of notable bands don't deserve articles. Also, this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • comment your realise of course that a tour in 1983 is not going to have any hits in gnews, I do note that google does have 9,000+ hits though its dominated by memorablia sales. Tours are an acceptable daughter aricle of artist and group articles, rather than delete a merge/redirect is a reasonable alternative uder such circumstances Gnangarra 09:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

gnews has newspaper coverage from even before 1900. WP:GOOGLEHITS hardly establishes notability. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

point taken, tried an alternatve search on Robert Plant, guess what there's 143 articles between July - Dec 1983 coincidentially while the tour was on. Gnangarra 14:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep since Rolling Stone September 1983 has an article and there are others behind pay per view walls if one searches for Robert Plant instead, Rolling Stone article describes Principle of Moments Tour as Plants declaration of independence from the past strong words from the foremost music magazine. Then in 1984 in Melbourne The Age had an article on the show there. Gnangarra 14:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Merge to The Principle of Moments, the album Plant toured in support of, per recent AFD outcomes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 03:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

---

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} 00:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Merge per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. While WP:NOTDIR and WP:CONCERT apply, some mention is deserved based on the notability of the artist, and tours are most often in support of a specific album release. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Linkin Park. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Xero (Linkin Park)

Xero (Linkin Park) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Various versions of this article have already existed - two were deleted and one was redirected to Linkin Park (at least), but someone keeps recreating it under different names. You can see that in the article's current title - the word "album" is missing because an article with that word in the title has already been redirected. The same has happened for several articles about the band Xero, which have also been deleted or redirected to who that band is now - Linkin Park. For this article, there are no sources to be found that confer notability on this demo album, and the article that keeps getting recreated is actually a shallow re-hash of the band's history during that time period, which is already discussed at the Linkin Park article. Recommend that everything related to Xero and this demo album be salted as well. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Note - If you look at the article history it appears that I created it. I didn't, but just ended up as the first editor of THIS version of the article after a whole bunch of deletions, moves, and redirects. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - as noted above by nom, there was a cut and paste move from Xero (Linkin Park album) [22] to this article [23] by 70.105.172.220. If this article is kept this needs to be fixed. Edgepedia (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

---

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} 04:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirect I don't know if it's going to end or if someone is just going to keep recreating it, but we can at least have (yet) another redirect to Linkin Park. There's no reason for a band's previous name to have it's own article (other than rare occasions). Bkid ^{My talk}/_Contribs 07:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

---

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} 00:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment - It looks like nobody else will vote on this one, but I strongly suggest that redirect is not the solution here, because such a thing has already been done multiple times, as discussed above. An admin should consider some stronger action to prevent these Xero articles from being recreated yet again. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Classical liberalism (political parties)

Classical liberalism (political parties) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Original research. There is no source provided that defines or lists classical liberal parties, and the list seems to overlap with Conservative liberalism#Conservative-liberal parties worldwide and List of libertarian political parties. The sources provided for each party are links to their official websites, but a cursory glance shows that only one, the relatively new and minor Classical Liberal Party (Sweden), makes any claim to being a classical liberal party. TFD (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Per WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:NPOV. If you search using synonyms of classical liberalism such as lassiez faire, free markets, minarchism, you will find that there is backing for the platform of these parties. Classical liberalism is clearly defined and all the parties on this list are consistent with the subject (unlike the poorly written libertarian and conservative liberal lists). I think if (per consensus) we are going to build a encyclopedia that makes sense, we need to eliminate overlap between topics as much as possible. For a given topic, having one Master list (in this case liberalism) and then concisely defined branch lists (if the topic is broad enough, which this one definitely is: see Social liberalism for the differences), it would greatly improve the readability of topics.--  Novus  Orator  04:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Too tendentious and so contrary to WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

---

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} 00:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - The article sounds completely like original research and POV. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 01:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Dispatch EP

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

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

Still being recorded, tentative release date Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 30 April 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) 01:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The albums will be released on May 17 on iTunes; see [24] for example. Discussion closed. --Neodop 19:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neodop (talk • contribs)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

1. EP has been released: [25], [26], [27] (4th paragraph).
2. What policy did this violate in the first place? There are plenty of articles out there about upcoming albums, .

Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 00:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Those ones have plenty of sourcing too, while this has a YouTube video. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Tomoyoshi Miyazaki

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

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

WP:N Unable to find reliable, secondary sources providing in-depth coverage of this video game developer in order to evidence notability under WP:BASIC. I've attempted searches both in English and Japanese, but the latter using automated translation, so additional sourcing welcomed as always. joe decker^{talk to me} 07:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Although I'm an anonymous user, I don't think this page should be deleted. Already the one for Masaya Hashimoto is gone and I can't find it on Google cache, and now you're trying to remove this one. it's a valuable part of gaming history and the page should stay. Wikipedia's policy of randomly deleting stuff on a whim makes me hate this site. You can quote official policy all you like, but your collection of so called editors are a bunch of fringe nutcases who treat this site like their own personal lobotomy project. It's supposed to be a collection of information but there is a relentless mad rush by wannabe gung-ho editors who like to delete with little care in the world.

I doubt this is going to change anyone's mind, you're all inept I think anyway, but I wanted to commit this to digital print: Leave the Tomoyoshi Miyazaki page alone, it has already proved immensely useful for me, in pointing me in the right direction for additional research. Although I never use Wikipedia as a primary source, the page on T Miyazaki highlighted something I was unaware of, and therefor allowed me to go on and find primary sources for related information.

Without this page, acting as a beacon, I would never have been able to progress further, indeed I would have been oblivious to certain things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.221.167 (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia is not a primary source. It's a tertiary source. Marasmusine (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Indeed, Wikipedia is not a primary source, but it is a primary reference, to solidify your thoughts or writings a further research is needed, but nobody understands that. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 01:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note to anonymous user. Firstly, all opinions are welcome, anonymous or otherwise. Secondly, the fact that you or anyone else would use a page as a primary reference is exactly why this page is up for deletion. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable or it is completely useless because there is no way to know if it is correct. Wrong information is much more dangerous than no information. Lastly, why not register and get a username? J04n(talk page) 10:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 11:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note It's me, the anon from before. As I stated in my previous post, I do NOT use Wikipedia as a primary source. I use Wikipedia as a jumping off point to then find primary sources. Private research isn't allowed on Wikipedia, and that's fine, you can source me when my piece is published, but my point is this: the pages here gave me the names of two developers. From there I went through my contacts list until I found people who I could contact and ask about them. Plus I searched other online sources, including a Square-Enix staff database. Without this Wiki page I would not have even known what what to check. As for sources, the Japanese wiki pages are still up: ja:宮崎友好, ja:橋本昌哉

In addition, this page on HG101 references the two creators. Not sure if it's good enough, some articles on Wikipedia cite that site as a source.

http://hardcoregaming101.net/quintet/quintet.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.222.98 (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

---

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} 00:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Can't find third-party reliable references to raise its notability factor. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 01:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete unreferenced BLP. nothing in gnews for English. unless someone finds substantial coverage in Japanese it's delete. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Peter Comparelli

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

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

a stub that has existed over 3 years. fails WP:CREATIVE as a journalist and WP:BIO. simply being an editor in chief does not guarantee notability. Lacks indepth coverage [28] LibStar (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 30 April 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) 01:10, 6 May 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) 00:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - As per nom. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 01:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Jason Love (humorist)

Jason Love (humorist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Smarmy bio or autobio (before cleanup) of a non-notable humorist whose column and cartoon are each carried by a handful of papers. Orange Mike | Talk 01:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 30 April 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) 01:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment He doesn’t seem to be raising much of an interest either for or against, does he? It certainly looked like a self-bio as the tone was not encyclopaedic by any means before the mass edits. What drew my attention to this article was his name in List of Cartoonists being placed in the Notable cartoonists. He is not that notable to be in with such famous people and smacked of big headedness. His cartoons could allow him to be listed in the ‘Cartoonists of single-panel gag cartoons’. I personally look for something that stands someone out for an article, pointers being if they have a following, or are connected to something etc that would be of interest to a reader or someone that would look up this person. This “humorist” is very borderline for an article and a few cartoons in a couple of publications does not warrant immediate inclusion, in my opinion. --BSTemple (talk) 11:21, 6 May 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) 00:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - I can not find significant coverage in reliable sources that discuss him. The sources currently in the article verify the information is true, but none of them are really independent of him. They are either things he has published or interviews with him. As far as I can find no one has written about him. GB fan (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

DeadZones.com

DeadZones.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable. Only passing mentions in "sources", and they mention a different website than the name of the article anyway. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Non notable website, the article's main contributor seems to be closely related to the subject (WP:OWN, so the article is filled with POV and OR statements, the user refrain from accepting any possibility of the deletion of the article and has contested PROD and CSD nominations before. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 01:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Eduemoni. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazymonkey1123 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete No significant coverage as required by WP:ORG. --Muhandes (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The analysis of sources and policy by Cunard is thorough and compellinga and has not been refuted by the keep votes. The delete votes are the majority and city policy and both keep votes arguments have been refuted by Cunard Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Alexis Fields

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Alexis Fields
• Articles for deletion/Alexis Fields (2nd nomination)

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

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 29. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Obviously, since I was the one that asked that the subject be re-created. Actress had has ample roles in notable television series to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. QuasyBoy 04:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as she has had ongoing roles in several notable TV series, so she passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Cullen328 (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  That isn't what WP:ENTERTAINER says. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Using the search tools above, we get a ton of books with passing references, often noting that she is the sister of Kim Fields. The news results are all about the show, with her just being mentioned in passing. Does not pass our notability guidelines based on the lack of sources that discuss her in-depth. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete nothing put passing mentions. ENTERTAINER calls for significant roles, since no one wants to right or discuss these roles and the person performing them it seems pretty clear they are insignificant. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 22:47, 6 May 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) 00:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The sources do not cover Alexis Fields in sufficient depth to establish notability. Analysis of the sources in the article:
  
  1. "Alexis Fields Biography". Film Reference. Retrieved April 21, 2011. – a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 93#filmreference.com concluded that Filmreference.com is not a reliable source because it does not have editorial oversight. The discussion also revealed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources states that Film Reference is "[n]ot a reliable source for article use; use only for research purposes".
  2. Historical dictionary of African-American television By Kathleen Fearn-Banks - via Google Books – this source is a directory listing. Directory entries do not establish notability because they are not as calculated and selective as sources that purposefully delve into a specific topic.
  3. A contemporary classic, `Roc' returns with love, laughs and dose of reality - The Baltimore Sun, Author: David Zurawik Date: Aug 31, 1993 – the subject receives a passing mention: "The 11-year-old, Sheila (Alexis Fields), is the daughter of Calvin (Heavy D)." Judging by the article's content, the subject receives tangentional coverage.
  4. The complete directory to prime time network and cable TV shows, 1946-present By Tim Brooks, Earle Marsh via Google Books – this is trivial coverage, in that the subject is mentioned only in the cast list.
  5. Who Was Who on TV, Volume 3 By Norman Chance - via Google Books – like #4, the subject is mentioned only in the cast list.
  6. Frame by Frame Three By Audrey T. McCluskey - via Google Books – the subject is mentioned twice, once in a parenthetical to the film character she plays and second in the cast list. These passing mentions are not the "significant coverage" required at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
  7. Siblings Who are Also Celebrities - Jet issue Jan 19, 1998 - Page 56 – the subject's sole mention is in the photo caption: "Alexis Fields is following in the footsteps of her famous big sister Kim Fields Freeman."
  8. Encyclopedia of African American actresses in film and television By Bob McCann - via Google Books – the article is mostly about the subject's sister. The subject's sole mention is "Her sister [Kim Field's sister] is actress Alexis Fields, who was a cast member on Sister, Sister."
  9. IT’S A BABY GIRL FOR ACTRESS ALEXIS FIELDS (EXCLUSIVE) Submitted by blackcelebritykids on November 6, 2008 at 2:21 pm – this website is like an unreliable blog and the two-sentence coverage here is trivial.
  10. Wow, you know more than I remember. - Alexis Fields Twitter account – the subject's Twitter account is not a third-party reliable source.
  11. FIRST PICTURE OF KAYCIE JAE (ALEXIS FIELDS’ DAUGHTER) Submitted by blackcelebritykids on November 12, 2008 at 5:16 pm – see #9.
  12. Bianculli, David (1999-03-02). "Sitcoms Pay Homage To Two Tv Classics". New York Daily News. Retrieved 2011-04-18. – the subject receives only a passing mention: "Sheryl Lee Ralph (Dee) plays the choreographer of the sizzling new show Ricky is mounting at the Tropicana Club, and guest star Alexis Fields plays Lola Vavoom, the sexy star act Lucy decides to impersonate. These two women, and Brandy, have most of the fun in this sketch." Passing mentions do not establish notability.

  Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria states:

  People are generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
  
  A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.

  Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers (WP:ENTERTAINER) states:

  Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

  1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
  
  
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  
  
  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

  
  See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.

  The subject does not pass the first criterion because judging by the sources provided here, the roles she has played are minor. There are no sources that verify whether she passes criterion 2 or criterion 3.

  The references are either primary sources or passing mentions, neither of which enable Alexis Fields to pass Wikipedia:Notability. A Google News Archive search returns directory-type mentions or unrelated results. Likewise, a Google Books search also returns trivial mentions.

  I appreciate the work QuasyBoy (talk · contribs) has spent crafting this article and responding to the arguments for deletion at the deletion review. However, because the sources lack the depth and reliability mandated by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability, this article must be deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Issues solved. A disambig is ok. Tone 20:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ameur

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

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

Only one link inculded in this disambig. page. Wilbysuffolk talk 05:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect to Mammar Ameur. Seems to be a reasonable redirect. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect There is no need have a disambiguation page for the same person.-- CrossTempleJay  talk 10:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Expanded and reworked as anthroponymy list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:02, 6 May 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) 00:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Bloch

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

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

The article fails to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. After removing the claims of notability that are about the PR agency rather than Block, all that remains is his heavy Twitter use based on the Tweetlevel tool rather than a publication and being listed somewhere in the PR Week Power Book. Specifically the clients mentioned are Frank's rather than his personal clients (even if they were, being an agent for notable clients does not automatically confer notability) and awards mentioned are for Frank PR, not for Block himself. Fæ (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Delete The sentence - Bloch tweets at http://www.twitter.com/andrewbloch, does not add any important fact to the article. Again the heading - "What they do" talks more about a company and what the company has achieved rather than shedding light on the notable personality of Andrew Bloch. If no considerable expansion and make over can be done then it should be deleted.-- CrossTempleJay  talk 08:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is about a noteable executive in a listed firm, so is of relevance to media, shareholders, investors and employees. The information on Andrew's agency can and should be removed or placed on the main agency page, and additional citations for all other parts are being sourced as needs be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaySorrels (talk • contribs) 09:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Frank PR is not a listed company, the parent company Photon Group is listed on on the Australian stock exchange. Company executives are not automatically notable as Wikipedia is not intended to be a executive staff listing for the history of all corporate boards for companies that meet ORG. The criteria of BIO have to be met for the individual to justify a stand-alone encyclopaedic article. Fæ (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I take your point. That is not enough. However, the criteria for Creative Professionals should be instructive. This person is very regularly cited by peers and trade media in an authoritative manner and there are many analagous figures with stand alone entries which after a time of collaboration and editing have remained on Wikipedia without objection or incident. This article has clearly not met such a standard. But it must and will in the near future. JaySorrels (talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 6 May 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) 00:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Broadband universal service

Broadband universal service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Is this a notable concept or just a student essay? A large part of the article is a fork of National Broadband Plan (United States). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep This is a notable topic. The article needs to be improved, especially made more clear and given an international scope, as well as more "encyclopedic" language. But good work by the author. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

RHaworth makes a good point. This is a notable topic, the article does need to be improved, but what will the difference be between "Broadband universal service" and "National Broadband Plan (United States)?" This article seems to deal solely with "universal broadband" service in the United States. Banaticus (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and discussion. Broadband universal service is a much broader concept than the National Broadband Plan. I will add some more content on the entry. Oceanski (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have added some international cases and expanded the discussion of the ongoing efforts to reform universal service and to develop the Connect America Fund. Please take a look. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know. Thank you. Oceanski (talk) 19:16, 9 May 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) 00:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Obviously a major topic which merits good treatment here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to eBay. selective merge at editorial discretion Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

EachNet

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

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

Fails the notability guidelines for companies. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.

• Delete per nomination, a short-lived online auction business without any showing of significant effects on history, technology, or culture. All the information here could easily fit inside eBay, who bought it out, without undue emphasis. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• DON"T DELETESchool was a significant Brick & Morter 12,000 square foot institution that helped many unemplyed, underemployed and welfare recipients get well paying jobs in the casino industry...see Atlntic County's Job Training Partnership Act(JTPA) participating institutions 1986 circa.Isitme2 (talk)isitme2Isitme2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC).
• Merge and redirect--Google news hits and Smerdis's arguments suggest that this is a notable enough search term for a merge and redirect. It may be a tiny little section in the eBay article--then again, 150 million is not a tiny little amount. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 8 May 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) 00:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Strachman

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

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Author of business books, but has not "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Google News shows he's quoted periodically on relevant subjects but neither he nor his books have received significant coverage in independent sources per WP:GNG.ScottyBerg (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. The guy is a major player. He's published a ton of books with Wiley, one of the oldest and most respected publishing houses. Qworty (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I noticed that. But they haven't been "subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." ScottyBerg (talk) 19:12, 8 May 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) 00:02, 13 May 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) 01:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, while according to a strict interpretation of our guidelines this article should probably be deleted, I believe in this case we should ignore all rules and keep it. Subject appears to be at the very top of his field and has been quoted many times in the press, eg The Washington Post, CNN and so on. Also his wedding was mention in the New York Times, the guy has got to be notable. doomgaze (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep sufficient media attention to meet the threshold of notability. Chester Markel (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep See Articles about him in the NYT One of them actually has the headline: "Head of Tiger Management Considers Taking On a Partner" (July 1, 1997). If the NYT writes an article devoted specifically to the mere possibility of someone taking a parter, that person is clearly very notable. That's substantial coverage way beyond the ordinary. As for reviews, According to Book Review Index, his Essential Stock Picking Strategies. was listed among the Best Investment Books of 2002 by Barrons ( Jan 6, 2003 v82 i52 p31) and reviewed in Reference & Research Book News Nov 2002 v17 p105; Julian Robertson was reviewed in Traders Jan 1, 2005, in Futures (Cedar Falls, Iowa) July 2005 v34 i9 p79 and in Reference & Research Book News Feb 2005 v20 i1 p135 . DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Eight books published by the ultra-respectable Wiley on hedge funds and like issues makes one a "recognized expert" on an aspect of human enterprise and worthy of encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was 'Delete' - Peripitus (Talk) 09:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Karina Grundy

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

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. gets zero gnews hits which you would expect at least one. gbooks has a mere 5 hits [29], 2 of which are the LLC books based on wikipedia. the emerging photographer award is hardly a notable award nor a top photography award. LibStar (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Weak keep I want to err on the side of caution, If the awards she has received are from nationally recognized sources then fine else, there is not enough to support WP:Notability criteria.-- CrossTempleJay  talk 16:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

it is not a nationally recognised award. merely an award from a city's newspaper. LibStar (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; no detailed references about this person so WP:BIO isn't met. The only award the article lists her has having been awarded was from a city-specific newspaper. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 9 May 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) 00:01, 13 May 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) 01:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Lowell

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

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

WP:TOOSOON, yet to be notable 18 year old "hip hop producer" and "occasional emcee". Dennis Brown (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note A speedy wouldn't bother me, but I think it would have gotten booted out. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 15 May 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) 01:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:G11. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Speedied as spam, replica currently exists at User:Johnson617/Jonathan Lowell. – Athaenara ✉ 06:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Independent Democratic Party of Russia

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Independent Democratic Party of Russia
• Articles for deletion/Independent Democratic Party of Russia (2nd nomination)

Independent Democratic Party of Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Although there where perhaps attempts to create this party, it doesn't exist and won't be founded, which became clear already some month ago. The article can be deleted, thus. Alfredovic (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 6 May 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) 00:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. This newsletter from May 1st is the most recent information I could find on it (I didn't check Russian sources though). Could you comment how did it became clear that it won't be founded? Looking at the previous AfD there was a small consensus that the non-existence of the party wasn't an issue as long as it was worded properly, given the fair coverage it received when the announcement was made. Would it be any different if it was definitive that the party won't be formed? - frankieMR (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the newest information about so-called NDPR (Independent Democrativ Party of Russia) is from march 2009, as I can see in the Russian sources. Ryzhkov which is mentioned is in a new party now (see my comment below). Lebedev still is in the party Fair Russia; and the website http://www.ndpr.alebedev.ru/home/ has never been updated since 2009. The presentation on the party project by Lebedev itself (the only thing one can find at the website) has been created on november 25th, 2008, and it was uploaded on march 10th, 2009. Since then - no members, no blog, no information, no attempt to register the party - not existant, for short. Therefore delete it. Alfredovic (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Not every political party needs to survive to be historically noteworthy. When The Guardian is covering the Independent Democratic Party project LIKE THIS, you know there is an encyclopedia-worthy subject involved here, whether or not the party actually launched or not. I favor the lowest of all possible barriers for coverage of serious topics like this. This is what encyclopedias SHOULD be writing about... Keep and improve. Carrite (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It has never existed, so you can't say that it didn't survive - there just was never such a party, and never had any members. Alfredovic (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - 1) There was never a concrete project of this party, only thoughts about it 2) Ryzhkov is now in a new party, the Party of Popular Freedom/Parnas 3) Gorbachev didn't found a new party, and 3) Lebedev is still a part of Fair Russia. There has been founded a real new party - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Popular_Freedom_%28current%29 So strongly delete article, since we don't need an article of a non-existing phenomenon, which nothing concrete at all exists about. Alfredovic (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. It does seem as if the party was never founded; maybe we should merge the content into Gorbachev's article? —Nightstallion 14:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Yes, the party never managed to become a registered party in Russia but due to its well-known backers I think the idea of creating this party is worthy of an article. And it did manage to create lots of media coverage. Närking (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, is an idea of creating a party really enough? Even it is an idea by Gorbachev .. not everything he stated in an interview should be worth an article. Alfredovic (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. The concern with the first AfD was with WP:CRYSTAL for a moment, but unless you are to consider the party a product it was clear that no speculation was being made and that the announcement to form the party was serious, so it was treated as such by the media. If it is somehow clear now that it won't happen then crystal is definitely not an issue, and it is only required to source that fact to seal the content. Notability was clearly established by consensus last time, and it is not temporary. I think the nom has a valid concern regarding that content is to meet significance, and on that I agree with Carrite's position. The subject is of a matter that the encyclopaedia actively seeks since that's it's purpose in the first place - frankieMR (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Lung Transplant Foundation

Lung Transplant Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Speedy G11 contested by a third party on the grounds that the wording of lead paragraph has been cleaned. However, the rest of the article is still blatantly promotional, and no third-party references were used. A search in Google News yields no non-trivial references either, making the organization non-notable. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• The article is no more promotional than articles about other non-profit organizations here on Wikipedia. Furthermore, there are several third-parties that discuss the Lung Transplant Foundation (of these, the Hearld-Sun of Durham, North Carolina and Great Charities.org come immediately to mind). The organization is young, so it may not yet have received as much third-party coverage as other organizations, but it still has received some, and that makes it notable. Keep. Sterlsilver (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Sorry, but there is enough on google news alone to demonstrate notability. Feel free to edit it as to reduce anything that appears to be promotional. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. At least half of both regular and news searches are about the Heart and Lung Transplant Foundation from Australia, and the rest are passing mentions and comments. The only good item is the one already on the article. These two news 1 2 might provide with something, but they are behind a paywall. Even then coverage would be minor, and the current content is unacceptable - frankieMR (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm not seeing the significant coverage in reliable sources that would establish notability. Much of the search results in Google News are either incidental mentions, or not this particular organisiation as pointed out above. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Those of you who are not in need of a lung transplant will opt for a deletion. Those of us who will be facing this critical operation, would LOVE to continue to see it 'advertised' or ANY other capacity ON WIKIPEDIA. I vote for KEEPING, not deleting. JH in FREELAND, MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.31.22 (talk)

  I've moved the above from the talk page as it appears to be meant for this discussion -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 12 May 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) 00:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - There's multiple editors asserting keep with a claim that coverage in reliable sources exist. Could somebody please provide some specifics because I've looked and have not found the claimed coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of significant coverage. fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Abdominal obesity. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Index of Central Obesity

Index of Central Obesity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disputed prod. An article about a newly suggested way to identify obesity, written by the person who created the concept. It does not appear to me to have wide enough traction or coverage anywhere to warrant an article yet. Kevin (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep?? I'm not an expert on this type of article, but it would appear to be covered by multiple reliable sources ( [30] and [31] for example), and at the very least, pass under the strictest interpretation of general notability. Whether or not it is an effective "novel parameter in identifying central obesity" or not, I have no idea, but it is being discussed and studied. Would appear any issues with it are a matter of editing not deleting. If there is a flaw in my perspective here, please feel free to hand me a clue. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to take a look through the notability guidelines for a specific area that deals with stuff like this, but my chain of thought looking at the low citation count on the original article was that it had not yet established sufficient notability. (It is certainly verifiable, I just have notability concerns.) If it looks like I'm wrong, I'll withdraw the nom. Be back in a bit. Kevin (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't actually find a specific relevant section anywhere. My concern is essentially just that massive numbers of similar parameters are discussed in a couple of papers each every year without achieving any lasting notability - Similar thinking to that behind WP:ACADEMIC except that that guideline deals only with people, not concepts. I'll look around some more, and I'll withdraw the nom if I can't find anything. Kevin (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If all the links I could have found were no more than scientific abstracts, then I would agree, but I found at least two talking about the ramifications, (honestly, I'm lazy, I probably could have found more). Just using WP:GNG, that seems to pass muster. Of course, it isn't always so simple, which is why I qualified my keep !vote. Regardless, I don't think it will hurt anyone for it to park here for a week and allow a wider discussion. Surely someone will pipe in that knows more about these types of articles than you or I, or at least think they do ;) Dennis Brown (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely looking like my original nomination was based on something I assumed was present in the notability guidelines that wasn't actually present, but per your suggestion I'll leave it up for other people to comment. Kevin (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the first link you dug up suggests a separate reason why this article may need to be deleted - in it, "index of central obesity" is used as a genericized term to refer to measures of centrals obesity, and not as a proper noun or in reference to this specific measure. This would suggest that info on this particular measure may be appropriate to include on the general article about central obesity (where ways to measure central obesity are already discussed) but not as a standalone article. Kevin (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Merge it to Abdominal obesity. Hardly stands alone (not generally adopted, sparsely cited, original in a non-peer reviewed journal), but a discussion of this idea alongside other measures of central obesity would be useful. "Index of central obesity" isn't a phrase solely limited to Parikh's idea so the redirect is a good one anyhow. Fences&Windows 00:57, 7 May 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) 00:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Merge per Fences&Windows. I couldn't find any use of the phrase as a working term. If fits perfectly with the target subject, and there is good content to include. I also support the redirect - frankieMR (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Changed keep to merge At this point, there doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage. It can always be forked later. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep there are several journal articles in different journals and by different authors on this topic. Article needs some clean-up, but looks like the beginning of something good.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 13:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the first link Dennis posted, "index of central obesity" is used there as a generic term to refer to measures of central obesity, and not as a proper noun or in reference to this specific measure. To me, this strongly suggests that it would be appropriate to talk about this particular measure on the general article about central obesity, but not as a standalone page, and especially not as a standalone page titled as it currently is. Kevin (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

those articles are from 1996 & 2001. Parikh introduced ICO in 2007. The name uses generic words, but English allows for a difference between index of central obesity in lowercase letters as a generic description and Index of Central Obesity in title case as a specific index. The inventor of a thing usually gets to pick the name unless a different name becomes more widely used.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 20:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 22:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete can be recreated if it ever becomes widely used at all. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. It's from Medical Hypotheses. No evidence that it is in widespread use. JFW | T@lk 08:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

even though medical hypotheses is not a peer-review journal, a peer review was published in a separate journal (doi:10.1586/erc.10.38).  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment If we’re going to make an article about every topic that has been the topic of a peer reviewed journal I have a lot of editing to do. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

one example of wider use is Veigas et al.: "Oxidative Stress in Metabolic Syndrome". doi:10.2478/v10011-011-0006-6: "A detailed clinical examination and family history was taken of all the subjects. Blood Pressure (BP) was measured by standard methods. Anthropometric measurements including height, weight, waist (WC) and hip circumferences (HC) were measured as per standard procedures. BMI, waist: hip ratio (WHR) and index of central obesity (ICO) (WC/height) (14) were calculated." the full article is freely available.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 13:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

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