Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 1 - Knowledge

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to School District 62 Sooke. JForget 00:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

École Poirier Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable elementary school. • ɔ ʃ → 01:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Disagree that the school is non-notable. It is very notable to the local community, and is one of the leading schools in the region experimenting with innovative uses of Web 2.0 tools to promote learning and communication.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grarts (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Grarts is the creator of the article. Edison (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect to School District 62 Sooke. The usual practice is that high schools are entitled to their own article, and that elementary and middle schools have to demonstrate a wider recognition beyond the community per WP:GNG (I can forsee that this may be able to establish that depending on how many schools in B.C. have the French immersion program). Edward Milne Community School would be notable since it graduates the students. Poirier would probably have to demonstrate some national recognition, or at least province-wide. Mandsford (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect/Smerge to School District 62 Sooke. Random individual elementary schools are not generally kept as separate articles in AFD. Apparent lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, though routine school activities are doubtless covered in the local newspaper. Edison (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It would seem that the criterion of 'noteworthiness' is somewhat arbitrary when applied to schools. Secondary schools being automatically entitled to an entry simply due to the age level of students that they service is a questionable indication of noteworthiness. As valuable entities in and of themselves, any school should be entitled to an entry, so long as the information contained within the entry is verifiable.Grarts (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2010
  • What is the benefit to the wider community and to Knowledge by deleting elementary schools as a general rule, as opposed to the benefit of retaining them? Grarts (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2010
  • I will have to admit to not being entirely familiar with all of Knowledge's policies, but in reviewing what Knowledge is not (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not), I am unconvinced of the merits of removing this entry. Is the comment about an elementary school needing to be noteworthy a reference to policy, or practice? Grarts (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2010
  • Comment There are many occasions where an elementary school can meet the requirements of WP:GNG (a factor of which is widespread recognition) to satsify more editors than not that it is notable enough for its own separate article. The conventional justification as to why a high school is inherently notable, yet a primary school is not be is not about the age of the students (an 18 year old is no more deserving of a good education than an 8 year old), but about the authority of the high school to grant a certificate or diploma. WP:NHS is not a policy so much as it is a summary of the common outcome of the debates over schools. As a matter of etiquette, elementary school articles that are part of a class lesson that introduces students to Knowledge, tend not to get nominated immediately. After a week, it's presumed that the class has moved on. Finally, nobody opposes retaining information about an elementary school in some location. Where the disagreement begins is in retaining that information in a separate article, rather than as part of a school district article. Please note that if this were to be redirected, it means that one would click on a link to École Poirier Elementary School (or type it into the search box) and be transferred to an article that is not called "École Poirier Elementary School". Nothing is lost, other than, perhaps, a small measure of school pride. Mandsford (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment There appears to be a great deal of subjectivity to the guidelines on notability. It would seem that if the person suggesting deletion has never heard of the subject, the article in question becomes a candidate for deletion. This does seem somewhat arbitrary. Further, if others are not familiar with the subject, then it seems that deletion becomes even more likely. At what point in the debate is the decision made regarding deletion vs. retention? Grarts (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Although I am thankful that the subject of the article does not suffer from some of the challenges cited in http://en.wikipedia.org/Linwood_Elementary_School_%28Kansas%29, it does seem to confirm the arbitrary nature of determining 'noteworthiness'. The debate over deleting Linwood dates to 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Linwood_Elementary_School_%28Kansas%29) and resulted in a 'keep'. I hope that noteworthiness does not equal notoriety.Grarts (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I can appreciate your frustrations with the Articles for Deletion process-- you've been a contributor to Knowledge for more than a year ago, but this may be your first encounter with "AfD". We are all unfamiliar with Poirier school, other than what we are told about it from the article and the sources listed in the article or found on a search. What we base our arguments of keep or delete upon is our opinion about whether it is demonstrably notable in the way that Knowledge defines notable (which is a longer story). Essentially, anyone can nominate an article for deletion. As a rule, we assume that everyone is acting in good faith and that their reasons for nominating an article, or supporting or opposing the article, are based upon their view of how policy should be interpreted. At that point, it comes down to the arguments made by the people who weigh in and the reasons that they advance. Arbitrary? Perhaps, although "subjective" may be the better word, since the determination of notability is based upon each speaker's opinion about whether something is notable enough for inclusion. I don't think that anyone who opposes the article is advocating that all traces of Poirier Elementary be expunged from Knowledge. As with anything else, the familiarity that they have with the subject is based upon what they are told about it from the article itself. Some will read an article and conclude that the school is notable (or that there are other sources that could prove it to be notable), while others will do the same reading and searching and conclude that it is not notable. As to when the decision takes place, usually (not always) it's about seven days after the nomination. Mandsford (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Question As the originator of the article, am I allowed to post a keep/delete comment (according to guidelines or recognized etiquette within the wikipedia community? Grarts (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, by all means. Mandsford (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
You already did so, above, right after the deletion nomination. You could go back and edit it to add "Keep" at the beginning. Do not add an addtitional Keep !vote. Edison (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hasn't happened yet, so far as I can tell. It's no different than the nominator saying "Delete, as nominator". Until someone puts the bold print around keep, delete, merge, etc., there isn't a !vote (not that it's a vote anyway, which is why we call it a "!vote") but the bold labelling of one's opinion makes it easier for an administrator to see, at a glance, how many people are registering an opinion). For the same reason, if a person has done this more than once (usually a new person), then we strike through the additional bold !vote for the same reason. Doesn't really matter where you place your !vote, up there, down here, in the middle, who cares, so long as you don't have more than one !vote on the board. Despite the length of the discussion, there are only four people who have actually weighed in. Mandsford (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The application of the 'noteworthiness' criterion to elementary/middle schools is highly subjective. In the absence of clear indications to the contrary, I believe that the debate on this article should revert to the default (which is, as I understand it, 'keep'). Grarts (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I certainly have learned a lot more about how Knowledge works, and the community as a whole functions throughout this debate. I still believe that if one level of school is noteworthy, they all are (regardless of the ages of the children attending). I will concede that some schools are more noteworthy than others due to special accomplishments within the school or its community. However I reject that there is any inherent noteworthiness of a school due to the ages of the children attending it, or whether students graduate from it. There are many, many secondary schools. Most of them graduate students. Therefore, the fact that secondary schools have students who receive high school diplomas is not really noteworthy. In fact, I would venture to say that a secondary school granting a diploma is quite ordinary. If this is true (that secondary schools are not particularly noteworthy), then this substantiates the argument for retention of elementary and middle schools with their own entries in wikipedia, as it ensures an equal standard is applied to all schools (that there is an inherent noteworthiness to schools by virtue of the fact that they exist and serve a community). Grarts (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The policy towards schools continues to evolve, mostly through discussions here at the AfD forum, where I feel that the real development of policy takes place, and where even one person's opinion, if it persuades others, can affect whether an article stays or goes. I hope your intro to "the politics of Knowledge" hasn't turned you off from it, because it's a great site. Just as the articles are a place to sharpen one's writing skills, AfD is a lab where I sharpen my argumentative skills. The real problem for me hasn't been how to counter someone else's statement, so much as it's been how to counter it in a civil fashion. Mandsford (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2010 (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. I agree with everyone , no possible claim no notability DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Rise and Fall of the Omega Phi Funk Jr. Fraternity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence found of existence, let alone notability of the Omega Phi Funk fraternity. (Ghits look suspiciously like wiki mirrors). Previous prod was contested without addressing notability issue. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 1 May 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Sobota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find significant coverage for this battle--even Google Scholar turns up nothing. The only source listed is dead for me, and the article has been largely untouched for several years. And note the first sentence: "The Battle of Sobota was a battle of little importance." • ɔ ʃ → 22:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect/Merge to Second Northern War. No sources and the only citation is dead like the nominator already said.--White Shadows 23:04, 1 May 2010 (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 as a hoax. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sonic X The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined speedy/contested proposed deletion. I can't find any sources to verify this information. Possible hoax. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2010 (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. JForget 01:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Kickin' Kenny V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed deletion of this previously deleted article was contested at requests for undeletion with the rationale "Kenny is all over the web, from old school flyers to other events". The two proposed deletion tags were added with the rationale "no notability asserted for the subject of the article" and "a good faith search shows no mention of this person in reliable/notable sources, only MySpace/Youtube and some clubbing community sites". This is a neutral, procedural nomination only. Best regards, Arbitrarily0  21:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete One of those unsourced articles from the good old days that has snuck away from AfD and PROD processes for four years, there's just no way this person is notable based only on airplay on a radio station when the ratings are traditionally low (Saturday nights, where this person's tracks would likely play). Nate • (chatter) 21:54, 1 May 2010 (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 Supergrass. Shimeru (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Release The Drones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased album, band split up, so no release expected, there is no substanital coverage and the existing cites date from before the split - there is no evidence the album was finished. Hekerui (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Money Matters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested Prod. Non-notable 7" single by barely notable artist. No charting. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh Confucius, your bold action was de-redirected by the user DJSasso with the rationale that this debate is still in progress. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - while redirect is okay, I see no reason for doing so because this EP has gained no notability on its own. The only sources of coverage I can find are the record company website and various networking and list sites. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:49, 6 May 2010 (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. JForget 01:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Greater Cincinnati Aquarium Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A challenged speedy deletion of mine. I do not think the references show any real claim to notability; they show only that you are members of a group of local societies with essentially open membership, that a representative was interviewed on a a local news program once, and that some of the members succeed in breeding rare fish. Local hobbyist societies of this sort are excellent things, and contribute to public interest in science, but they are almost never individually notable. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my request to look at the notability of this article. Considering your response, I feel it is indeed appropriate that the organization is not "notable" as within Knowledge standards. While, I do not necessarily agree with these standards, I respect Knowledge's right to enforce them. I would like to thank you however for taking the time to respond to my request to reconsider, however I now understand why it does not meet the guidelines put forth by Knowledge. Would the national organization FAAS (Federation of American Aquarium Societies) meet Knowledge's notability standards, I believe it does since it has influenced exotic pet species laws, and has had other influence of national importance, but I would like to know your opinion before I create an article for it. --Theexiledmagi (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It is à priori more likely to be notable than the city chapter. However, the vast majority of Gsearch results seem to be directory entries, or referrals from the city/regional organisations. It would be helpful if you could cite articles where it is clearly credited for the accomplishments you mentioned. Ohconfucius 23:06, 1 May 2010 (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. JForget 01:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Reburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. ttonyb (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Charles Alexander (defensive tackle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Undrafted free agent, did not sign with a team (failed physical with the Eagles). Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I stand by my choice to !vote delete due to the fact all of the coverage while independent is local coverage and is thus to be expected for every college athlete.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
      • With all due respect, the coverage Alexander received is in no way comparable to what is to be "expected for every college athlete." I regularly review AfDs for college football players. When they fall below the notability threshold, I don't vote to keep. The typical college football players do not have feature stories written about them. The typical college football player will draw, at most, passing references in game coverage articles. Alexander, on the other hand, has been the subject of numerous articles focusing on him as the principal subject of the article. The coverage received by Alexander is more than sufficient to show general notability. Cbl62 (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Also, the media coverage of Alexander is not limited to a local newspaper. There are articles about him from The Sporting News, the Associated Press, the Orlando Sentinel, and the major daily newspapers in both New Orleans (The Times-Picayune) and Baton Rouge (The Advocate). Cbl62 (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
          • While there are numerous feature stories, like I said all of them are local coverage (LSU's media and the New Jersey ones for him failing the physical with the Eagles). All college athletes are expected to receive headline stories on every single thing they do no matter how important it is. Just because he was a starter and apparently a good college player and received local coverage it doesn't mean IMO that he's notable.(This last bit is added on after an edit conflict) While true the majority of it is local (the Baton Rouge paper, is local while it may be major it still covers LSU fully like the San Francisco Chronicle with Stanford) and thus IMO don't count towards notability. The 4 or so national sources include 1 game wrapup, 2 stories on him receiving a 6th year (which is unusual) and 1 game preview. --Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
              • Reply. The fact that there are "numerous feature stories" about him in respected media outlets like The Sporting News, the Associated Press, and the daily papers in both New Orleans and Baton Rouge ought to be enough to establish notability. There is simply nothing in the notability standards to suggest that articles in daily newspapers from major cities like New Orleans and Baton Rouge should not count in assessing notability. I understand your point of view, but I believe it reflects (not just by you) a bias against college football players. If a local politician, professor, or businessman had 20 feature articles about him, I don't think anyone would be challenging his notability. There should be, and is, no higher threshold of notability for an athlete than for any other person. Cbl62 (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. A clear failure of WP:ATH.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Abraham Lincoln doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, should we delete him? Umbralcorax (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Abraham Lincoln is not an athlete. And I tend to weigh guidelines (the GNG says that significant coverage only presumes notability - that presumption can be rebutted, in my view, by failing more specific guidelines like WP:ATH) as being considerably stronger than essays with two contributors. But that is my view and you are entitled to disagree. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Taken to its extreme, your argument that WP:ATH trumps WP:GNG would mean that a college football player who never plays in the pro leagues could never qualify. I know from reviewing your past comments (which I respect) on other AfDs that you do not take the argument to such an extreme. Query though, how many feature stories would be enough, in your opinion, for a college player to be notable? And would you require the same number of feature stories for a politician, businessman, or academic? Cbl62 (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
It is a difficult question and the position can't be taken to its extreme. There clearly need to be exceptions. This case may very well be an exception: I'm not wedded to my delete position (and consensus is clearly not going to be to delete). Here, the featured content is quite local (eg the 2009 Times-Picayune article) and the non-local content (such as the AP article) is quite brief and uninformative. It is my view that if we apply WP:GNG too strictly (either way) for athletes, we may as well not have WP:ATH at all. Likewise, applying WP:ATH without any regard to WP:GNG means we would have deleted LeBron James. So I think it should be a balancing exercise between WP:GNG and WP:ATH - both after all only create presumptions of notability. Neither should override the other. I think this guy's coverage in news sources is outweight by the fact that he's never come remotely close to playing football on a professional level. But very much an on-balance judgement. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I agree that all factors need to be balanced and not taken to extremes. A couple of specific points, though. (1) On the issue of discounting local coverage, I can sympathize with the point more when the only source is to a single small-town article or two. But I would strongly oppose any notion that we should disregard stories from major metropolitan daily newspapers (like New Orleans' The Times-Picayune). (2) There remains, in my experience, a disconnect in that many seem to apply a higher threshold to notability for athletes than others. If 20 feature stories is enough for the business exec, city council member, or researcher, there ought not be a different threshold for an athlete. To impose a different threshold would be imposing one's own personal viewpoint that athletics is a less worthy endeavor than others. Cbl62 (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I agree with that. I apply the same considerations to local politicians: that unexceptional local coverage tends to be insufficient to surmount failing WP:POLITICIAN. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Alexander was a starter for LSU Tigers during the 2007 national championship year and in the two following years. The article when it was proposed for AfD was a weak stub, buy I have now put a lot of effort into improving/rescuing it. I would ask the "delete" voters above to take another look. Remember WP:ATH is an inclusionary standard, not an exclusionary one. A college football player meets general notability standard if he has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. Alexander has been the subject of numerous articles focusing on him (i.e., not passing references in game coverage) in the mainstream article. I am working to integrate a number of those stories into the article. Cbl62 (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep- Numerous independent sources render WP:ATHLETE meaningless in this case. The GNG is met and then some. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:Athlete--Yankees10 01:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep More than meets general notability guideline with a wide array of reliable sources and notability. I've never bought the argument that a player has to play football "in the NFL" before they are considered notable--especially since college football experienced over 50 years of active play before the NFL even came in to existence.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep an article with this sourcing clearly meets the WP:GNG. Any discussion of WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant. matt91486 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2010 (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. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice to recreation if she receives such coverage in the future. Shimeru (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Vera Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating for deletion on behalf of an IP on the talk page. I personally have no opinion at this time whether the article should be deleted or not.

"There are three major bio points listed in the article:

1) She cofounded a fundraising group - Her cofounder Wambu does not find himself/herself (I don't know what gender the first name indicates) with a wikipedia page, and indeed can barely be found even by a Google search.

2) She was a finance director for a senate race. Not many of those are on Knowledge.

3) She was DSCC Deputy Political Director - Current DSCC Political Director Jeremy John does not find himself with a wikipedia page.

Furthermore, the page was created just six months ago, in September 2009, 4 years after she had some chance at being relevant for non-scandal related reasons.

I'm not well versed in the technicals of wikipedia rules, but none of this seems like earth shattering stuff. She's clearly up here in connection with affair rumors." NW (Talk) 18:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep. Responding to your point,"the page was created just six months ago, in September 2009, 4 years after she had some chance at being relevant for non-scandal related reasons" -- Monica Lewinsky is relevant only for scandal-related reasons, and no one has ever suggested deleting her article. So let's be consistent here.
  • Delete. It appears that the only potentially notable claim about the subject is something which, if it is untrue, would be libelous, and which doesn't actually appear in the article now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete with no prejudice against recreation if the rumors prove to be true.--Unionhawk 19:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm unsure as to how to handle discussing the allegations the Enquirer makes within the article, but I can say that reason 2) for deleting the page, at least, doesn't work. Not many finance directors for US Senate campaigns may be on Knowledge, but how many of them worked on a campaign for a man who four years later would become President of the United States? The page existed before the Enquirer allegations and the AFD now looks, for better or for worse, like blatant vengefulness. We should be mindful of what happened the last time Wikidenizens tried to keep a famous politician's peccadilloes (that the Enquirer first broke) out of Knowledge. YLee (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ylee, and the fact that this just isn't going to die, and wishing it away won't make it happen. It will be kept like other people in similar circumstances, such that the best thing we can do is keep it around and make sure what's there complies with BLP. Jclemens (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards keep as it looks like more reliable media is starting to report on this. I am not sure if is considered reliable enough and seems a little tabloid-ish, but I think we're getting warmer ... –MuZemike 20:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought I would have seen more in short order, but I am not. Then again, it doesn't help with the oil spill getting all the coverage right now. No comment right now, but if nothing reliable comes up, then I may have to support deletion here. –MuZemike 23:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep As the article notes, she's a rarity in political fundraising circles, and was an integral part of President Obama's historic Senate campaign. Quite frankly, I can't see any reason to delete the article other than rank, deplorable racism. The attempt to denigrate her substantial accomplishments is shameful. And I must say -- why does the LOBBYIST Vicki Iseman have her own Knowledge page, other than to perpetuate the New York Times disgraceful, rumor-mongering attack on McCain the moment he secured the nomination? Her career is far less notable than Baker's. If you don't like the rumors about Baker, then just protect the page, but don't disrepect the woman.TruthfulPerson (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment - take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I highly doubt allegations of racism - if Vera was, say, white, and her article was nominated for deletion (assume everything else about her is the same), I am positive this claim would not have arisen. Furthermore, having an article on Knowledge or not does not respect or disrespect a person. Airplaneman ✈ 22:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says the argument I made is valid. What is very clear is that Vera Baker has impeccable (even historic!) credentials, and the only reason given for deletion is a scurrilous, racist rumor. Conversely, Iseman's credentials as a dime-a-dozen lobbyist are laughable, and that only reason she was given a page was because of an (imaginary) affair. And yes, it is highly disrespectful to delete a person's Knowledge page full of accomplishments merely because of a nasty, racist rumor. TruthfulPerson (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep on the grounds that she was a major contributor to Obama's fundraising/campaigning. I think this article needs more than just a few days of protection, but I guess we'll see how it goes... Airplaneman ✈ 22:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
(Note: Not registered; No other edits. -X) Keep She's notable enough, and I agree with others that the subject for deletion wouldn't exist without an unfounded rumor that some find impolitic. In fact, I hope some interested observer is collecting information so the article can be expanded on in the future. 72.251.35.10 (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)hitcharide

Abuse of Process The method used to deal with current event problem by NuclearWarefare NW is an embarrassment. The merits of the story itself have ample questions. See: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005010006. But to lock down the article without any discussion in TALK preceding, then to ask for the article to be deleted is more commentary on the matter than anything. Some does a Google on the name in the news, sees a Knowledge entry, then see that the article does not make any mention of the news, but shows the article has just been locked down, and then the entire article is being asked to be deleted. Those events sent a clear message to the reader.

I suggest. The article be removed from a request for deletion. That the article make a brief mention of what is going on. Then to have the article locked down for two weeks.

The sentence could be. " On May 1, 2010 the National Enquirer tabloid ran an unsourced a story about an alleged 2004 affair with Barack Obama. --- Locking it down for two weeks from there does not leave the innuendo that this is being rapidly swept under the rug. Lastly she is a political fundraiser by profession, so this type of story is part of the politics that she is expected to deal with...this is politics.

Nuclearwarfare went off half-cocked, which given his alias is the last thing we need. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Please respond to the above at Talk:Vera Baker#Abuse of Process. Airplaneman ✈ 02:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per WP:BLP, badly sourced scandal-mongering needs to stay off this article, but without that what do we have? An article in Politico with a paragraph about her consulting firm (not actually about her personally), another reliably published article that mentions her only trivially, and a purported screenshot of uncertain provenance showing her bio from her consulting web site. That's not good enough, and the present situation makes it very difficult to make any improvements. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's avoid silly, conspiratorial references to things like the "purported screenshot of uncertain provenance." The provenance of Cape Caribbean's webpage is perfectly well documented -- Ms. Baker created it herself, and it quite proudly displayed on it her role in Obama's Senate campaign until the website suddenly disappeared in the midst of the 2008 election. Do you seriously contend that somebody other than Ms. Baker manufactured the webpage? If so, that would be an incredibly important political story. Also, did somebody fake the registration of Cape Caribbean with the Florida Secretary of State -- is that why that reference was deleted from this article? That would be an important story too -- someone breaking into the Florida Secretary of States' websites and planting a registration identifying Ms. Baker as a principal of the company.TruthfulPerson (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This reliable source spoke to Vera Baker on the matter http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1076695/Obama-hit-affair-smears-following-claims-attractive-aide-banned-wife.html Proper commentary can be made to this entry without any BLP issues. Certainly without the need to delete the whole thing. --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Her name isn't even mentioned in the article (published in October 2008). It would be original research to infer. Airplaneman ✈ 04:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Not only is the point above true, but The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, it's a tabloid who has a record of being sued for printing false material. DD2K (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete; WP:BLP concerns amock. And Tombaker321, the day a useless tabloid such as the daily mail is considered a reliable source, I print off a hard copy of the wiki and eat it. We're talking a paper which earlier today claimed that the tories wanted a 19.5% VAT hike - before almost immediately retracting the claims after finding out they were unfounded. Tabloid newspapers that specialise in shock news and celebrity gossip are not of the standard we require of reliable sources, particularly around BLPs. Ironholds (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - absent the speculative accusations of adultery, which we clearly cannot include at this point, there is nothing to suggest she would pass WP:N. Even though the material that remains about her is uncontroversial the article simply doesn't stand on its own. I could find no substantial sourcing about her and don't see that any has been presented, only passing mentions. This would be a reasonable candidate for deletion even without the latest gossip, although that is probably what brought it to the community's attention now. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable individual. I searched around for substantiated material that would establish her notability, but I found none. Perhaps her notability will rise to Knowledge standards in the future. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable person who is only mentioned because of tabloid media that are definitely not reliable sources. DD2K (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: inherent BLP concerns, borderline A7. Sceptre 21:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Also agree that "the subject for deletion wouldn't exist without an unfounded rumor that some find impolitic."Ewick12 (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
    Could you provide a valid rationale? Criticising the decision to AfD this article is not the same as showing that it shouldn't be deleted. Ironholds (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
(Note: Already voted as TruthfulPerson above -X) Strong Keep. She is HIGHLY NOTABLE --currently, Ms. Baker (now Baker-Merlini) is Chief of Staff to President Obama's Senate Successor, Roland Burris:

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May-2009/Burris-rsquos-People/

It should also be added that she was Legislative Assistant to Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Cal), Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

In short, there is no conceivable justification (other than racism) for denying this accomplished woman a biography on Knowledge.TruthfulPerson (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

  • 1) being chief of staff to a senator is not, on its own, something that qualifies as a notable position under say, WP:POLITICIAN. 2) please avoid personal attacks such as accusations of racism. Can you provide a single shred of evidence showing racial intent; a single comment that brings that possibility into play? I think not, because I doubt it's a factor for any of us. If Baker was white, we'd be coming up with the same rationales. The fact that you have to resort to accusations of racism indicates exactly how weak your argument is. Ironholds (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Ironholds, itt's perfectly acceptable to identify motives in connection with a deletion debate. Indeed, the first reason offered for deleting this article was the alleged motive of the author for posting it six months ago, even though there was no evidence of that.  Rather, under Occams Razor, the presumption was that in the absence of any other reason, a bad reason must be assumed.
  • So don't be so quick to level the personal attack charge.  I certainly am not, because I understand that many forms of racism are subconscious and therefore not morally culpable.  For example, many people don't understand the racism of arguments such as "she wouldn't have an entry if she were white.". I distinctly recall former VO candidate Geraldine Ferraro saying that Barack Obama was so unnotable that he would never have been nominated if he was white, and she was rightly criticized for it.  It's akin to "some of my best friends are Black" on the racism color.
  • Likewise, the Knowledge articles on the Tea Party movement are rife with accusations of racism even though no particular racist individual has ever been identified.  Again, the charge is legitimate even in the absence of reliable sourcing because no counter-reason for opposing the President's policies has been offered by the movement, other than the unspoken fear that a Black man has been elected.  Same, too, with the debates over Obama's citizenship -- even though various documentary issues regarding the "certification" and "certificate" are raised, Knowledge editors correctly identify racism as the underlying motivation.
"...even though no particular racist individual has ever been identified"? I laughed. Sonny Thomas was never identified; organizer Dale Robertson was never kicked out of the Houston Tea Party rally because of his "n-word" sign; half a dozen eyewitnesses never heard a racial slur this past March 20; right. It never happened - there is no proof. It never happened - there is no proof. It never ... Xenophrenic (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • With respect to Ms. Baker-Merlini, all I see are rather comical dismissals of everything this strong woman of color had accomplished.  A strong background in finance -- not good enough.  Financial director of Obama's historic senate campaign -- not good enough. Chief og Staff to Obama's Senate successor -- not good enough.  In a day when several Tiger Woods mistresses have their own Knowledge entries, it's disgraceful that Baker is denied recognition merely for being accused of the very conduct which forms the sole basis for their inclusion.TruthfulPerson (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
    You're misunderstanding my point, perhaps deliberately so. I was pointing out that even if she was white, we'd be making the same decision - in response to your claim of racism, saying that skin colour was not an issue here. Identifying race as an issue on my own would raise questions of unconscious or subconscious racism. Since you raised it, I fail to see the issue here. The only person I can see using racial issues as a lever here is you. A strong background in finance is not good enough if not covered by reliable sources. Neither is being Financial Director of a senate campaign. Someone without reliable coverage is non-notable; someone with reliable coverage for one thing (which is what we're discussing here) fails WP:BLP1E. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, there should be no hiding. But I am having trouble seeing how this rises above George Bush's homosexual affair with Victor Ashe, another story that skimmed around for awhile but is not to be found on wikipedia.--Milowent (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Or how it rises above Vicki Iseman's alleged affair with John McCain, an unsourced allegation which was withdrawn by the (unreliable) New York Times. Yet Ms. Iseman's wholly unremarkably biography remains, even though the rumor was the sole reason for creating the article on 21 February 2008 at 01:24. Does any other lobbyist of Iseman's non-distinction have a Knowledge bio? I couldn't find one. Also, where is the discussion page for the proposed deletion of that article? The arguments employed in favor of keeping Iseman's bio might certainly prove probative here.TruthfulPerson (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you think the New York Times is unreliable, but the Daily Mail is fine and dandy? Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - A mere rumor from an unreliable source is no reason to place an article on this otherwise NE person. If and when this story turns out to be true, that's the time to create this article. The fact that the Inquirer has on occassion been (often even then: partially) right, doesn't make them a reliable source. --Whaledad (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - There is no mention of anything libellous in the article. It is simply information on someone who is certainly no longer non-notable, regardless of the validity of the claims being made currently. Leave it locked until this "scandal" is proven/disproven. To delete it would in and of itself be showing a bias. It was added 8 months ago, and no one worried about deletion or notability until she became famous? Come on now, ladies/gentlemen... Archon888 (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
    So you're saying that the current claims are the claim to notability? See WP:BLP1E. And claiming that because nobody nominated it until now, deletion and notability aren't concerns is hooey. Deleting non-notable articles is to show bias; bias towards notability. The counter-article (McCain's alleged partner) was notable without those rumours; Baker is not. Ironholds (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
"The counter-article (McCain's alleged partner) was notable without those rumours; Baker is not." Rubbish -- the counter-article was indisputable created on 21 February 2008 at 01:24, the moment the lamestream legacy NYT decided to smear McCain with an adultery insinuation as punishment for just having clinched the nomination. (The same New York Times which a few months later had an adult reporter/stalker e-mailing the 16 year old friends of McCain's daughter at their Facebook pages to ostensibly determine "what kind of mother" Cindy McCain was). TruthfulPerson (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The reason for the attention on McCain's partner is not the question; it is whether she would have coverage that passes WP:BIO without the attention. A lot of the sources focus on her career, her job; there is coverage of other things. Baker is covered due to the alleged affair, full stop. References for the rest of her career are either a) passing, so not significant or b) not from third-party sources. Ironholds (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - dude i have no idea who this even is why does she need a page? - Limpbizkit1848 (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
    Would you mind providing a real reason to keep or delete? "I have no idea who this even is" doesn't cut it. Ironholds (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG, as the sources are about minority fundraisers in general, giving brief mention to this woman as part of a larger context. Was surprised to see that the article was actually created last Sept 09, but the bulk of the revisions didn't hit it til this past week, in a mad attempt to make it into a coatrack criticism of Obama over an alleged affair and coverup. Tarc (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The article was created by an editor who also created Neo-birtherism, so I doubt its creation was random.--Milowent (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article undoubtedly needs to be improved but I don't think this is any reason to delete it. Vera Baker has become a notable person and hopefully with improvement WP will be able to inform the public about who she is.Onefinalstep (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    Would you care to link to examples of this notability? Note that coverage in blogs, forums, and tabloids about affair innuendo is not on the table. Tarc (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    I'm not interested in debating whether the scandal story should be on the page. That argument can be had on the articles talk page. I think the question should be: does a person who has over one million hits on google be considered a notable person? I agree that there needs to be more flesh to the article if we are going to keep it w/o the affair stuff. I have a hunch that her biography is possible to find with sources. Perhaps we should be looking for that stuff instead of deleting the article.Onefinalstep (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    I would imagine that the people voting delete did indeed look. Google results aren't everything, after all. Did you happen to find any reliable sources that indicate notability in your research? NW (Talk) 23:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    I haven't researched.Onefinalstep (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    So you haven't researched, and google hits don't mean anything. Have you read WP:BLP1E? Ironholds (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    No I haven't. And given that this article has been up for six months before all this scandal stuff hit the fan I would say that she is notable for more than one reason.Onefinalstep (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    Really? Prove it. Find coverage that would pass WP:BIO if it wasn't for this scandal. Having an article beforehand does not mean that the article beforehand passed our notability guidelines - it isn't evidence of importance, it's evidence of editing. Ironholds (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep -- The Vera Baker/Obama discussion, judging by the persistence of other kinds of scandal rumors and stories about any major political figure, is not going away-- I looked her up tonight because of a mention in the Atlantic Monthly's website's front page. Article could be improved. There should be some neutral mention in the article of the main reason her name is being searched for. Evangeline (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Appears notable and documented with reliable sources. The article predates the alleged scandal. I agree that the scandal shouldn't be mentioned unless reliable sources can be found to support it-- strong BLP issue there. However, if you ignore the scandal (which I am) she's notable in and of herself. Wellspring (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Several people have said "she's notable" but fail to show exactly how; we're getting quite a glut of these vapid keep votes. Back it up; show us a reliable source that gives significant coverage to this person, not something that mentions her in passing as part of a larger story on campaign fund-raising. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete; notability has not been reliably shown. DS (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per the lack of sufficient coverage in reliable sources. None of the reliable sources I have reviewed covers the subject in the depth necessary to pass Knowledge:Notability (biographies). Cunard (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2010 (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 per CSD G4 as a substantially identical copy of a page previously deleted via a deletion discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Atheistic terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

difficult to make NPOV; too specific and should be merged into Atheism or Terrorism if kept at all bd_ (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This article has already been deleted. Joal Beal (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2010 (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 Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Zoom In: Rape Apartments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep with respects to the nominator, not all pre-internet subjects have wide coverage on the web. That topic is covered in books and other online sources that will require translation. A reasonable presumption of notability in Japanese is acceptable for en.Knowledge. Schmidt, 22:24, 1 May 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Phillip Saunders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PROF ("Lesser administrative posts (Provost, Dean, Department Chair, etc) are generally not sufficient to satisfy Criterion 6"), fails general notability, no 'significant coverage in reliable sources'  Chzz  ►  04:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Well, the GS search doesn't turn up much. This is far short of what we'd normally expect under WP:PROF. StAnselm (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 17:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - dean of a law school, full professor, and admiralty law expert. We almost always keep law school deans. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Schulich School of Law or Delete. When all that can be said about a person is "dean of a law school, full professor, and admiralty law expert", that is not an encyclopedia article. That is a tidbit of information that belongs in an infobox. The claim that he is an expert in admiralty law is unsupported by secondary sources or citation record. Also, there is another Phillip Saunders, a professor of economics at Indiana University, who has a better claim on WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 07:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. He's not even the most prominent Phillip Saunders in maritime law; a paper by a different researcher, Phillip C. Saunders, concerning China's claims to the Diaoyu Islands comes up much higher in Google scholar. Despite some digging I was unable to find any evidence that he passes WP:PROF or other notability guides. Even if one argues that deans of law are inherently notable (not a position I hold myself but I've seen it in past AfDs) we would need something nontrivial to say about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Keep arguments are 'deans are usually notable'. It takes about 30 seconds to write that and little thought or research. I'm not seeing anything more substantial from the keep votes. Googled for news about him. Nothing. Szzuk (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2010 (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. --but move, per Ty. Shimeru (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul Kelleher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:BLP1E, because the person is apparently known only for a single incident of vandalism, which is already covered at Margaret Thatcher#After Parliament (last paragraph). As the article itself indicates, it may also cause embarrassment to another person of the same name.  Sandstein  17:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. The relevant information is in the Thatcher article, but the incident as a standalone article falls far short of WP:N/CA. Normally I would suggest a redirect, but since there is another Paul Kelleher this could be confused with I'm not sure that is a good idea. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a very well known, albeit pointless, incident. it may also cause embarrassment to another person of the same name - I share his name, actually and am very pleased that when my name is googled the 1st result is a guy cutting the head off a statue of Thatcher. Ceoil (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:BLP1E notes: "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." This incident continues to be referenced, e.g. BBC 2006, The Guardian 2007,, The Guardian 2008, Wales on Sunday 2009. However, it may be advisable to create Decapitation of Margaret Thatcher statue or some such and redirect Paul Kelleher to that. Causing embarrassment to someone of the same name is not an article criterion. However, if it is to be considered, then this is a reason to keep the article, as it is likely to be the only coverage that points to the fact that it is not the same person as the actor, i.e. it does not cause but counteracts the potential embarrassment, which already exists in other coverage. Ty 17:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • This is pretty superficial coverage of Kelleher, mentioning not much more than it was he who damaged the statue. But there might be enough coverage to write an article about the statue itself and its decapitation, and to redirect "Paul Kelleher" to that article.  Sandstein  17:25, 2 May 2010 (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 all. Tim Song (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

X Worship 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of these albums were originally discussed in the article X the album which was perfectly fine. Unfortunately, they all had non-free image covers which as per WP:NFCC (see also WP:NFLISTS) clearly isn't allowed. After I removed the violating images the author tried an end-run around the restrictions by creating an individual article on each album. Unfortunately, they are all unsourced and fail WP:NALBUMS; are pretty much copy and paste headers with a track listing; and as such should be deleted. There is no reason why the original article which contained an overview of each album should not be retained. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

X Worship 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
X Christmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
X 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
X 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
X 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
X 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
X 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
X 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
X 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
X 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 09:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep provided some reference is added to each. A track listing is enough to have a minimal album article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
    • That's the problem. A link to the ITunes page for the album together with some reviews added by ITunes users, or a reprinted press-release style piece, is not in the slightest bit sufficient. There are reviews and mentions out there, but they tend to be blog-style websites or not significant. There's definitely enough here to write an article on the series of albums (which is how the article stood before it was split), but the albums themselves? (Also, WP:MUSIC suggests that articles that are little more than bare track-listing should be merged to the parent article, but that's a separate point). Black Kite (t) (c)
  • Keep per Graeme Bartlett as all of the articles now have at least one reference. Tag the articles for expansion and copyediting. --evrik  19:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment Despite the fact the Black Kite was driving an edit war before, I’m Assuming good faith. BK is correct, that each of these articles could use some expansion and some clean-up. Each of the articles is now sourced, and they do pass Knowledge:Notability. I am amused by the characterization that an end run was made. Black Kite complained that the X the album article had images, so the logical choice was to break up that article, and clean-up some of the text. Black Kite still wasn’t happy because of the lack of references, so now references have been added. You’ll note that the DVDs have been included with each of the album articles. Can we close this debate and move on? --evrik  19:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:GNG is still not met. Browsing through the sources, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" has not been established. Some are press release repeaters, some are user comments/blog style posts, and none are multiple sources, none seem significant, but that could be arguable. Therefore NALBUM has not been met, yet. I'd welcome users to keep working if they really think that each individual album is notable, under our guidelines. -Andrew c  21:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete/merge back Neither Graeme Bartlett or evrik cite any policy or guideline for the basis of their arguments. Weak, at best. As Black Kite noted, these articles fail WP:NALBUMS and should be merged back to the original article, where a track listing can readily be hosted (see Bee Gees discography). Just because an album has a track listing (ALL albums have track listings!) doesn't make them notable enough for stand alone articles. As for references, each article has the exact same first paragraph, and the second paragraph varies only slight for the "worship" albums. In every case, the single reference on each album article is to support those first one or two paragraphs. The single citation on each is exceptionally weak. Example; thefish.com. Alexa says it's not even a top 100,000 site. It barely even breaks into the top 500,000. Lastly, separating these article in an attempt to keep the album covers seriously misses the point of WP:NFCC. These separate articles are pointless. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
    • What I love about these debates is how they evolve. One of the issues was that the articles weren't sourced. Now its, well the sources aren't good enough. The fact is, given the chance each of these articles has the opportunity to be expanded upon. I am now going to go and rewrite the leads, so it cannot be said that they are all the same. --evrik  19:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
      • The point remains that the articles individually fail notability requirements. That hasn't evolved. It was the case before, and remains the case now. Further, there's nothing about these albums that can't be merged into the main article. That too was the case before, and remains the case now. No amount of verifiable improvements will change the reality that these are not notable. Improving the leads so they are not all the same isn't going to change anything. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I disagree about notability, which is why I went and found sources. I also love the comment, "no amount of verifiable improvements will change the reality that these are not notable." So, nothing will chnage your mind? Good to know. --evrik  19:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Permit me to make myself clearer. These albums are not notable. There are no significant verifiable sources to assert notability. Unless their notability in fact changes, you're not going to be able to verifiably improve these articles. I invite you to prove me wrong. Find a Time article, or USA Today, or Entertainment Weekly, or SOMEthing from a significant secondary source. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Graeme Bartlett. They are more notable than a number of other record album articles on wikipedia. Tage them as stubs and for expansion. Newport Backbay (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:ITSNOTABLE, and doesn't explain why or how they could pass WP:MUSIC. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
      • WP:ITSNOTABLE is not policy. It is an essay. Many things written here are opinions. --evrik  14:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
        • And Graeme's comments aren't based in policy/guideline either. Whereas the people advocating delete have rooted their opinions in policy/guideline. Opinions not based in policy/guideline here don't carry much weight. I certainly hope the closing administrator does better than count votes and conclude no consensus. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
        • ITSNOTABLE is a useful shortcut though to something explaining why such !votes will probably be given less weight by closing admins. When closing AfDs myself, I generally give no weight to "It's Notable" or "It's Not Notable" comments that don't refer to policy, and you will find that most others do to. This is why AfD is not a vote. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • @Newport Backbay; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't much of a reason to keep. It just means other stuff exists that should be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
      • This goes to my last comment. Everyone here has an opinion, but none of what has been said is strongly rooted in guidelines or policy. I don't see there being a consensus for action either way. As such, we do less harm by kepping the articles. --evrik  18:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
        • That isn't the case at all. The Delete comments clearly point out why the articles currently fail our notability and sourcing policies, vis they are currently not sourced to any significant third-party coverage. The Keep comments do not give any reasoning as to why this is not the case. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
          • It seems to me that the delete comments are using a lot of words, but not saying alot. The keep argument is simple: The albums are notable, the articles are sourced. The articles could use improvement and deserve the chance for future growth. --evrik  14:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
            • You've proved my point. Merely saying "these albums are notable" and not giving any evidence to support the claim means such !votes are not useful. Saying "these articles are sourced" when the sources are not significant or reliable merely backs that up even more. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, I find 3 reviews with significant overlap in google news, and I certainly don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2010 (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. JForget 01:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Not The Tommy Boyd Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable podcast that ran on a defunct internet radio station. Neither the original name nor its final name can come back to any reliable Ghits; it's hard to even tell how long the show was in existence. Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:23, 1 May 2010 (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. JForget 01:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Vegetarianism and veganism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an un-sourced personal essay. There are articles at vegetarianism and veganism which point clearly to one another. - Sinneed 16:10, 1 May 2010 (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. JForget 01:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Portsmouth humane society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have found no reliable, third party sources that document the notability of this society. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2010 (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. JForget 01:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Virgil W. Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Non notable serviceman. Doesn't meet criteria of WP:MILPEOPLE. I note he only died in the last two weeks and I wonder if the article was created as some sort of obituary. It's also uncited. NtheP (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2010 (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. JForget 01:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Desire (demogroup) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aside from being 20 years old, which is somewhat moot considering they were inactive for 10 years until a few weeks ago, this article does not demonstrate the notability of the group. No real references Jac16888 14:40, 1 May 2010 (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. JForget 01:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Essex Blades (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. As per Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Durham Saints, Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Edinburgh Predators, Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Swansea Titans and Knowledge:Articles for deletion/NTU Renegades. British university sports teams for mainstream British sports such as soccer have next to no following. American Football has an even smaller following. 18-months on from the last deletion nomination, which appears to have failed on a procedural basis due to a batch nomination, this article still does not have a single reference. That's hardly surprising as there aren't any. A google of Essex Blades returns nothing but self-published and sites in some way affiliated to the team. If anyone is in any doubt to the notability of British University sports teams, take a look on their own website's gallery. If I'm generous the number of spectators could be counted on your fingers. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2010 (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. JForget 01:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Limeriddle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced neologism, a "combination of limerick and riddle". ALI 13:13, 1 May 2010 (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. JForget 01:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

UEA Pirates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per previous AFDs for Durham Saints, Edinburgh Predators, Swansea Titans and NTU Renegades. A British university American football team with little or no claim to notability. Pfainuk talk 10:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

delete. British University sports teams are not-inherently notable, even soccer teams have next to zero following (i.e. a handful of people go to the matches). American Football teams in the UK are even less notable. Googling UEA Pirates turns up nothing other than the team's own site and those of other University American football teams in the UK. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
There are a few - but they're concentrated in four sports: Association Football, Rugby, Cricket and Rowing (the Oxford teams for all four are probably notable, for example). It's a very rare university team in any other sport that meets our criteria. Pfainuk talk 15:29, 2 May 2010 (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. JForget 01:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

CDisplayEx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Software lacking independent coverage in reliable sources. Pcap ping 09:23, 1 May 2010 (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. --per lack of sources. No prejudice to recreation if sources are found. Shimeru (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Arts & Cultural Council for Greater Rochester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. appears to get no real coverage outside Rochester and most of the coverage verifies its existence rather than in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"is funded by the state as one of its regional arts councils" is not a criterion for WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:55, 1 May 2010 (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) 15:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WMHO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Station is a Part 15, unlicensed radio station which does not enjoy the notability that FM, AM or Low Power stations do. Station is not licensed with the FCC and the WMHO callsign is not licensed to any station. The page has no references to back up any of the information posted on the page, which in and of itself fails WP:V. The page also fails WP:N. NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC) 08:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:52, 1 May 2010 (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 Battersea (UK Parliament constituency). Shimeru (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Layla Moran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined CSD. Non notable political candidate who does not currently hold any political office. The debate centres round the last ground of WP:POLITICIAN which says "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." The arguement for retention is because she has been quoted in the media shed has acquired notability. My arguement for deletion is that until she achives something, WP:BLP1E applies as any would be MP who cannot achive significant media coverage at the time of a general election should not be standing for office. Unless she succeeds in being elected I think she remains a 'low profile individual'. NtheP (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I admit to a certain confusion about "WP:BLP1E applies as any would be MP who cannot achive significant media coverage at the time of a general election should not be standing for office." This seems judgmental: Whether or not she should be standing for office, she is. whether she merits it is for the voters to decide, not us. DGG ( talk ) 08:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry my point is that the only coverage of her is as a potential MP, nothing else. NtheP (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. We all agree that being a political candidate alone doesn't make someone notable (which is the point of WP:POLITICIAN), but neither does it impose a higher standard of notability than would be required for a non-political-candidate. The general notability guideline still applies. If she has significant coverage in independent reliable sources, she's notable. In my opinion, there's nothing in WP:POLITICIAN or WP:NOTABILITY to indicate that coverage generated through being a political candidate doesn't count for notability purposes.

So really this is not a discussion about WP:POLITICIAN at all, IMHO. It's a discussion about whether she meets the general notability guideline. In this case the article subject has non-trivial coverage (1/3 of the story is specifically about her) in one BBC news article, and is quoted in a two of other articles from the BBC and elsewhere. I think that just pushes her over the line of notability, which is why I spent some time improving the article. However others with more experience in making these judgments than I might think otherwise, and I cheerfully accept that. Thparkth (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:51, 1 May 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Donkey show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:Reliable sources, there is little evidence of notability; indeed, little hard evidence that "donkey shows" actually exist. The one cited source seems based on anecdotal evidence and does not seem like a reliable source. Kansan (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning them in movies does not prove they exist. Urban legends are frequently discussed in the media. Those comedies are not reliable source. Kansan (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: This user has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Kansan (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, per notability standards. I dream of horses (T) @ 00:57, 1 May 2010 (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 speedily deleted (WP:A7) by Bwilkins. — Rankiri (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ballad For Layla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage of this band outside the self-published MySpace fare. Mkativerata (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:49, 1 May 2010 (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 Swissôtel. No consensus for deletion, but lack of sources should preclude a separate article. A brief mention in the article about the greater chain should suffice until/unless sources are found. Shimeru (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Swissôtel The Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable subsidiary of Swissôtel per WP:CHAIN. While other hotels of the kind may have architectural features making them notable, I can't see any such references in this article. De728631 (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:48, 1 May 2010 (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 Dragon. This article does not add anything that isn't already covered there. It's a not-unplausible redirect term, so I elect not to delete the article outright under CSD criterion A10. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Dragon facts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This only contains non-encyclopedic material. Décembër21st2012Freâk at 00:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at all of the other pages? This actually has information that you can use. It can give you ideas for art, it can help you on a homework assignment, etc. I can't think of another user name (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge is not a learning site (see the bottom section which says "Now it is time to learn about the various breath weapons."). It also says "Let's get started" in the beginning of the article, and other articles don't say that. The "Dragon Anatomy" section also looks like your making someone learn something. Also, dragons are made-up and not real. Décembër21st2012Freâk at 01:14, 1 May 2010 (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. Also, WP:OWN and WP:NPOV issues need to be addressed through the normal dispute resolution processes. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Apple Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has become unsustainable because a couple of non-NPOV editors took ownership Lars T. (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Does the article hold to the basic tenets of verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources, and is it duplicative of other articles?
  • Does the article meet objective standards for separateness and the WP:SPLIT criteria (i.e., does it warrant its separate existence from the Apple Inc. article)?
  • Does the article assert facts about opinions and describe the opinions themselves?
  • Has the article's editing purposefully omitted or concealed significant citable information in support of alternative viewpoints?
  • Does the article need a more impartial tone that would help a more neutral characterization of the catalogued disputes?
  • Does the intent of striving for neutrality mean the article should be edited to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true?
  • Being that AfD is not cleanup, is the article an improvable work in progress, and if it demonstrates non-NPOV, are these issues remediable without the draconian AfD?
  • Regarding the impetus for the AfD nomination, has the nominator assumed good faith on the part of the other editors?
  • Regarding the nominator's argument the article is WP:RUBBISH-deserving deletion because of (a) non-NPOV and (b) article ownership issues: is non-NPOV a reason for deletion or for further article improvement? Is article-ownership extant and if so, to what degree?
  • Has the nominator consistently exhibited uncivil behavior and if so does it suggest the nomination was not made in good faith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sctechlaw (talk • contribs) 06:35, 4 May 2010 (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) 15:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

NanoZip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software "currently in alpha state of development" - lacking notability  Chzz  ►  04:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep, Notability is not lacking - it's the leader in numerous benchmarks. --Varnav (talk) 06:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Alarming note to developers that they should not call software "alpha" or mention that the development is not abandoned and that only commercial software is notable to Knowledge. Samir000 (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Obviously "Google News" will not find anything about file archivers except for Winzip. I made a test searching for "Info-zip" (the standard file archiver) and "Google news" found nothing. Should we delete Info-zip article now? Actually the argument is not simply that other non notable compression software exist, it's that all compression software (excluding Winzip) will fall into such non notability. I will add more benchmark references if that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samir000 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, I did look at what Google News came up with on a search for "Info-Zip". Right now, I'm not going to express an opinion as to whether or not I think those results can support an article; not relevant anyways. But these sources are remarkably available for Info-Zip, while NanoZip draws a complete blank. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 1 May 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

General Oi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

possible hoax, possibly simply not covered by reliable sources; I find no decent sourcing searching for either General Oi or Oi of Goguryeo, although I appreciate that may be a language issue. Ironholds (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 1 May 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ricky Vega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure if there's enough for notability here. I have looked for other sources but cannot find them either. He has trivial mentions here and here (under the name "Machete" with no source to indicate that this is actually him). The other website used doesn't show him any longer as it seems there is a claim that he's since retired. Note that I've removed all the unsourced information per BLP as some include some "real-life" claims including legal issues so the longer version has a lot more claims (which keeps getting reverted) but I'm still not sure it's enough. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ricky Vega wrestled for numerous independent outlets as well as stints in both the World wrestling federation as Ricky Vega and in Total Nonstop Action as Machete. Ricky Vega has also wrestled and won world titles in Puerto Rico with the Internation Wrestling Association and many more to name a few. He has indeed since retired but making the claim that Vega isn't Machete or that he hasn't had enough for notability is just not accurate. If that where the case you would need to erase all wrestler's not Rock, Steve Austin, Hulk Hogan and Shawn Micheals. Is this not a source for all things? Thanks for the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.7.93.61 (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you find reliable sources for any of that? I haven't been able to find much which makes making an accurate article quite difficult. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Lucha Libre online, PWI (Pro Wrsetling Illustrated) ranked Vega 2008 and 2009 in there top 500, Declaration of Independents (website), IWA.TV has him listed in there title history and 1Wrestlimg.com have all cover and or featured Vega over the years, Combine that with what you have and you may find what your looking for.

Hello, My name is Ephraim Vega also known as Ricky Vega. I appreciate all the emails and support I have received from many who followed my career and believe I deserve to be recognized. I am glad anyone even cares to be honest. However I am retired and have nothing do to with wrestling any longer. You are more than welcome to delete if you have to as that is something from my past and no longer associate with in my life. Thanks again to all those who are fighting to keep me on here but the past is the past. Never really been on here and I am a big old west fan so it's cool that I learned of this page. Thanks again. — 24.2.20.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Are there any reliable sources as to who has won the IWA World Heavyweight championship? This is the source at IWA Undisputed World Unified Heavyweight Championship but is there a secondary source that mentions this at all? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Probably notable, but it needs improvement. I'll abstain for the moment. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 05:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Professional wrestlers are subject to WP:ATHLETE. He meets the criteria, as he competed at the top level of his sport (TNA Wrestling). Per previous discussions, ranking in the PWI 500 also helps establish notability, so two rankings in the list certainly helps the case. There is obviously still a lot that should be added, but there is no reason to delete an article that meets the notability threshold simply because it is not yet complete. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Brooklyn college APD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability standards NYCRuss ☎ 14:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Sorry for any ambiguity in my statement. As Bridgeplayer said, I meant that the Brooklyn College APD exists only at a single school (since it is the chapter for Brooklyn College of the national APD organization) and thus is non-notable. The national APD organization has chapters at multiple schools and so I would not object to that article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Firstly we cannot merge unsourced material. These searches have drawn blanks - . This search repeats the claim of being the oldest fraternity on campus but none of the sources are reliable. Secondly, even if the claims could be independently and reliably stood up a merge wouldn't dovetail well into the parent article. Putting a small piece on one chapter in the main article doesn't make good sense; however if there was a section/sub-page listing all the individual chapters with their foundation date and well-sourced that would be a different matter. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Note, a user has tried adding a listing of all chapters at the parent article (example); but it has been reverted by multiple editors on the grounds of it being an unencyclopedic directory (among other reasons given). It may be an issue for its own RFC. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 1 May 2010 (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. Despite her appearance in the seminal Hot Wax Zombies On Wheels, reliable sourcing remains paramount for a BLP. No prejudice to recreation if such sources are found. Shimeru (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaëlle Comparat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ENT, with only three small roles in nonnotable films, no indication the subject can meet the GNG or any other specialized guideline. PROD removed without explanation by now-blocked sockmaster. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment if ENT is not seen to apply, why not look up the ladder to WP:GNG and make a decision based upon not one... not two... but appearances in four issues of Playboy "Special Editions" (added per reply below) from 1995 through 1998, factor in her appearances in mainstream film, and then stir in the book mentions? Schmidt, 03:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Reply. She has no Playboy appearances; the listed appearances are for Playboy "Special Editions," far less prominent and generally regarded as not evidencing notability, as indicated at List of Playboy NSS models, where virtually none of the nonPlaymates have articles. The book references are simply castlists; if the films don't demonstrate notability, the fact that their castlists were published in filmguides doesn't. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that. I added "Special Editions" to my comment above. It might be seen by editors that a "Special Edition" might even be better than just being a centerfold... as inclusion in them requiring a different set of criteria than those used to choose centerfolds. Schmidt, 20:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Now that argument makes no sense whatsoever. Playboy "Special Editions" are the much less prestigious photo mags where the company burns off its inventory of photos that weren't used in the main mag, and of models who didn't pass their Playmate tryouts etc. As the long, long lists of models I linked to demonstrates, there's a well-established consensus here that such appearances don't contribute significantly to notability, and models with much longer lists of Playboy SE/NSS credits aren't seen as notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Lets not WP:OSE, and let's please remember WP:CCC. As is seen by the way certian BIO guidelines have been discussed, argued over, and modified over the last few months, if it were to happen that enough editors came to the fore, those recent changes could find themselves subject to a new consensus and be reverted. It is understood that each time someone makes the decision to send something to AFD, a new discussion takes place, the specific article is discussed, and a consensus is reached for that article. What happens to something else, somewhere else is fine... but this is a new discussion.. not a rehash of ones elsewhere. As you speak with such assurance up above, does this reflect a personal knowledge as to Playboy's editing policies? I'd hope the strength or your supposistions is based upon more than opinion or original research. Perhaps please, you might provide the specific sources you used in making your declaration that the Playboy Special Editions are not so special? And share please, what sources you found that lead you to imply that Gaëlle Comparat is no more than some cast-off relegated to a throw-away and less significant publication of Playboy Inc.? And please... no need to divert to a long list of models elsewhere... as this discussion is only about one... and not about others whose articles have not yet been written. Schmidt, 03:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
            • While consensus can change, there's absolutely no indication that the consensus on PSE/NSS models has, and there's no need to restart the discussion from square one for example of a class where consensus hasn't been disputed. The lack of general notability for the Playboy "Special Edition" should be evident from the fact that the dozens of them share a single article, spun out of the Playboy corporate article; the most successful, the "Book of Lingerie," has only about fifty trivial GNews hits over its more than 20 years of existence, it ought to be impossible for a reasonable person to maintain that it enjoys more than a trivial amount of its parent's notability. Asking what sources I've found to prove that the subject is nonnotable is exactly the wrong question; there aren't any independent reliable sources discussing her -- only, for example, a single GNews hit for a listing of a tv broadcast of movie she was in. I get more GNews hits for my real name than that! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, WP:PORNBIO makes no mention of it not applying to playboy models. At any rate, she also fails WP:ENT, and any other notability criteria you throw at her. And the article is complete bereft of reliable sources--a bad thing for a BLP. Yilloslime C 22:01, 8 May 2010 (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) 15:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Rancho Cascades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little to no content. Might even be a QD candidate. Also, not sure it's notable...I live in LA, and I haven't even heard of this place Purplebackpack89 18:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Media sources seem to indicate that name change proposal was never made official. (If there was sourced content here, we could merge. I've added a short sentence to the Sylmar article.) TheFeds 06:50, 3 May 2010 (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. JForget 01:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Super War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I find it hard to believe that this is not something made up one day, especially considering that the inventors are listed as "MP, KK, and JF". Seems WP:MADEUP to me, and a Google search comes up dry. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:06, 1 May 2010 (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) 15:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

YourBittorrent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) -- its former name

Non-notable website spinoff that doesn't appear to have made an impact on its field. MBisanz 01:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Like we're talking academic stuff here: "impact", "field", etc. What impact did The Pirate Bay make? The only question here is whether it satisfies WP:WEB/WP:GNG. Pcap ping 13:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't even see why this is questionable: it's a notable torrent site, it's popular and it's obviously "made an impact"- really, the punctiliousness of some of the editors has a negative effect on the wiki. I don't see how leaving information OUT of the wiki helps anyone.

Keep, as I totally agree with the above. 208.88.110.98 (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2010 (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) 15:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Lucius Nereparampil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Academic who is non-notable in terms of WP:PROF. He was, apparently, a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, but I don't think that is enough for notability. StAnselm (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Another member of the PBC was discussed a few weeks ago - Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Matthew Vellanickal. That ended as no consensus, but that was because he was also head of a seminary. StAnselm (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete GS cites are thin: 4, 2, 1, 1. GB finds several citations of his Destroy This Temple, but Google finds no discussion of his other work. Seems to fail WP:PROF unless additional sources can be found. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2010 (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. Closing over outstanding delete !vote per WP:IAR. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

KGB Archiver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Software that fails WP:GNG. Lacks any in-depth independent coverage. Pcap ping 00:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wanted (1980 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of passing WP:NOTFILM. EuroPride (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2010 (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) 15:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sex Magic (1977 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of passing WP:NOTFILM. EuroPride (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The film is mentioned in (beginning at page 71). Emily Jensen (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2010 (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) 15:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

TiVo Community Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although the TiVo Community Forum is occasionally mentioned by the media when one of its members is being quoted on something TiVo related, the forum itself has not been the subject of reliable coverage, and thus the site fails the relevant notability guideline. jæs (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2010 (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) 15:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal Trainers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of passing WP:NOTFILM. EuroPride (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2010 (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. JForget 01:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Malaysian local bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All bands except one do not have articles. A list defined around a non-notable subject of "local bands" should not be maintained. Clubmarx (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2010 (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) 15:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Classmates (1986 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM - The non-dead link provided does not really seem to assert the notability of the film. EuroPride (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence of or assertion of notability under WP:NOTFILM, article text is little more than a laundry list of nonnotable cast members.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2010 (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) 15:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Al Parker's Flashback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. It is claimed that it is a "collector's item" however this is unsourced POV. EuroPride (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2010 (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hijinks Ensue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable webcomic; sourced entirely from the article's subject; little to no important coverage or reliable sources. Sugar Bear (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete per WP:N, maybe even speedy per WP:CSD#A7. --Jayron32 05:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence of notability Rirunmot 16:45, 1 May 2010 (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.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑