Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 28

< Knowledge:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

< 27 March	29 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Samo Stanič

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

Associate professor of physics at University of Nova Gorica since 2006. Says he has co-authored more than 400 papers, but only found 2 papers in which he was primary author. Other claim of fame is chair of the organizing committee of the International Conference on Time and Matter and the editor of the proceedings of the conference. Usually the proceedings is a collection of abstracts or short papers from people giving talks at the conference. Article was created by User:Sstanic. Bgwhite (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I can find almost nothing on GS. Delete unless a better search reveals more. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC).
Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Google scholar search brings up very few citations to his work. --LK (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: A member of a high energy physics collaboration will generally be a coauthor of every paper produced by the collaboration, which explains the 400 papers. In large collaborations, the number of coauthors can be in the hundreds or thousands. This certainly makes it more difficult for someone outside of the collaboration to judge whether an individual member is notable. The subject's personal web site contains a list of all the papers. Will Orrick (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Why aren't these papers on GS? Why are there no cites to them? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC).

I'm not sure how Google deals with the hundreds-of-coauthors problem. If you type "Abreu Delphi" or "Abe Belle" you get lots of hits. (Abreu is a member of Delphi whose name appears early in the alphabet; same with Abe and Belle.) Stanič appears to have been a member of Delphi between about 1997 and 2000, and of Belle starting in 2001. If you examine papers by the collaboration in the relevant date range, you will find Stanič's name on the author list. Some of these papers have been cited hundreds of times. But again, I don't know how one judges the contributions of individual coauthors. Being on a series of papers with thousands of citations doesn't necessarily mean you're notable if you're one of hundreds of coauthors. Will Orrick (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the problem. I think it up to the proponents of the paper to prove notability to the satisfaction of editors. It seems that little independent achievement outside the team has been demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC).

Delete. These papers are on Google Scholar and have been cited. A 'better' search is not difficult: searching for "S Stanič" as an author finds 309 papers and gives him an h-index around 30. Quite a nice illustration of the dangers of a simplistic interpretation of citation indices, however: I checked the most highly-cited ones, which each have well over a hundred authors and arise from the Belle Collaboration, an international collaboration of more than 400 physicists and engineers (if you believe Knowledge). Normalizing h by a divisor reflecting the average number of co-authors (as Hirsch suggested in his original paper) would seem likely to give a quotient in single figures and hence provide little or no evidence that he might satisfy the first criterion of WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria. Neither did I see anything in the GNews & GBooks results that would constitute significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Qwfp (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this helpful input. A search for "author:Samo Stanič" gives far fewer. I agree with your conclusions. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC).

Delete. According to the Web of Science, the papers that he has co-authored have been cited over 11,000 times and he has an h-index of 52 (BTW again showing that WoS is much more reliable in this sort of thing than GS). Normally, these figures would lead to a snowball keep based on WP:PROF #1. However, I expressed my concerns about this article already a while ago (here). As others already point out above, this huge productivity/citation record is caused by his participation in a few huge project, but he seems to have been only a minor player in them. So in this case, the citation record is not decisive. I see nothing else that would go some way to meeting one of the other criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete. This is a good example of how simplistic h-index or other methods of citation counting can be. In such a case as this the best thing to do, in the absence of sources demonstrating a pass of the general notability guideline, is to go with the judgement of the subject's university, which hasn't appointed him to a full professorship. Associate professors at the world's top universities may sometimes be notable, but I don't think that the University of Nova Gorica falls into that category. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody suggests that citation data should be interpreted simplisticly. The data need the careful examination that has been given in this AfD and which has revealed the true state of affairs. Maybe a sentence needs to be added to WP:Prof to alert to the not very common situation of large research groups. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC).

Delete. Concur with above: numerous papers, for which there's no demonstrable evidence of significant scholarly contribution. Two of these papers listed on WoS show an "S Stanic" as first author, but they are from the late 1980s, which is about 10 years prior to when this Stanic earned his PhD – presumably a different person. Would probably be OK if some other accompanying work that can specifically be credited to him could be found, but none seems to exist. Agricola44 (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC).

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Donald "Duck" Richardson

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Donald "Duck" Richardson

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

Some high school basketball coach. Does not meet WP:ATHLETE. bender235 (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment. He's not just "some" high school coach. Richardson was a very highly regarded Georgia high school coach, as the current article hints and other sources bear out, e.g. . I don't know if there's enough coverage to justify a separate article under the tough notability standards that generally apply to high school coaches, but he is an important figure in the history of his school, justifying at minimum mention and a merge/redirect to Southwest Magnet High School--except that, unfortunately, it appears that the current article may be a copyvio of the press release announcing his 2007 induction into the Georgia Sports Hall of Fame.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged the portion that is a copyvio —Bagumba (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"Comment" What is different from Coach Richardson's accomplishments and those of HS coach Bob Huerly of New York? 11:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Zachery Mitcham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchamz (talk • contribs)

After giving it a second thought, I have to agree Coach Richardson might be notable. --bender235 (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Member of the Georgia sports Hall of Fame and coach of six state championship teams. Article needs to be wikified and edited for style. Carrite (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep He was named National Coach of the Year to establish more than local/state notability. I've added to the article. Other sources are likely to exist to allow this to grow. —Bagumba (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. I think the awards demonstrate notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to The God of Small Things. And protect. Sandstein 05:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ammu

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

Article has been redirected to the The God of Small Things character list several times, but the creator keeps undoing it along with other constructive edits. Maybe deletion will stick. Katharineamy (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Unremarkable fictional character. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to the The God of Small Things. No notability outside that for the book. LK (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge and protect the redirect per nom. No assertion that the character is notable enough for a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Redirect and protect per nom. Reyk _YO! 09:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep - the nominator User:Phrasia and his sock puppet User:WisdomToothless are the only objectors. See sock report here Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Phrasia - (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Makoto (Street Fighter)

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

Unnoticeable video game character. Nothing unique. Barely popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phrasia (talk • contribs) 23:29, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Close - Point nomination by an editor who doesn't understand the rules of how Knowledge works. _Blake 23:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Speedy Close = Again, a point nomination. This is "revenge" for not having an article for not having Elena (Street Fighter) as a true article. TheStickMan 23:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) _Blake 23:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy close; Not even addressing the obvious biased here, Makoto has many reliable references asserting her notability. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Can you please explain these notable features?What makes Makoto so special? REDIR to Street Fighter characters please. ♥Phrasia (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- The character has been covered in GameZone, IGN, Retronauts, GamesRadar, Hardcoregamer, Bitmob, MTV, Eurogamer, GameSpot, GameTrailers, G4TV, Gamasutra, GamePro, and UGO Networks, all sources identified as reliable sources. An article's creation is based on both the necessity for an article - demonstrated in the size of sourced content in the Makoto article - and on coverage in reliable sources. Makoto succeeds in both respects. Please read WP:N and WP:V. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete and Redirect'- Fan favourite isn't good enough. Hasn't been in any side stories, anime, movies, cartoons. Hasn't been in any crossover games. It's a well written article, but there is a bunch of repeated jargon which talks about her moves. Nice article, but I just see favouritism here. WisdomToothless (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I, as the creator of the article, have never played a single video game ever made that features Makoto, and the only Street Fighter game that I've ever owned is Street Fighter II for the Game Boy. This article is written from the perspective of someone who pretty much knows nothing about the character in terms of gameplay, and the discussion of her techniques delves far outside simply listing attacks and discussing how they came up with them. Additionally, I must remind everyone that the character's importance in the series has nothing to do with notability. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment- You should really think before you type. Importance is all about being notable. The definition of notable, is popular. Well known. If you are well known, you are important. I created the Elena article. It wasn't accepted because she wasn't important to the series. I don't think it's fair that Makoto should be spotlighted for now. ♥Phrasia (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." Elena was sourced with one Wikia entry (not reliable source), one YouTube video (not reliable source), and Capcom (self-published source). Not one sourced utilized in the article asserted notability. I must point out that you are comparing two articles together, and I must ask why you consider them to be similar in notability. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy close The nomination highlights no actionable reasons for deletion, notability on WP refers to the notability guideline, not anyone's perception of how well-known a subject is. Someone another 17:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Strong keep and possibly close Aw, c'mon, just look at that nice plump reception section. She's totally notable. Harry Blue5 (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Italian and Romanian common words

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

No indication of importance. I can find no other such articles on Knowledge. Provides no references. Appears to be completely WP:OR. OlYeller 23:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Knowledge is not for potentially infinite word lists like this one. As modern forms of Latin, Italian and Romanian are so closely related that unlike in List of Latin words with English derivatives (which is already a borderline case), we would have to list about half of those two languages' vocabularies. This is not Wiktionary. We just can't handle this kind of information in our present format, and there is nothing surprising about it anyway. Hans Adler 16:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete per Hans. This list would include tens of thousands of run of the mill words, which is not appropriate for any list. I happen to disagree on the List of Latin words with English derivatives, because that is a limited and finite list, many of which are legal terms or are otherwise notable, such as pro se. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete - I concur with Hans Adler above. This would open up the floodgates for all sorts of linguistics essays. Knowledge is not the place for such fare, with all due respect. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete. this way can be easier to learn Romanian for Italian people and vice versa — so why put it in English WP? —Tamfang (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Because someone have made vandalism with my ip in the italian wikipedia.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.64.115 (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2011.

Indeed. Someone with your IP created the article it:Parole turche e italiane di mutua intelligibilità (mutually intelligible words of Turkish and Italian), commented in the AfD in which its deletion was decided , vandalised an admin's page (repeatedly) to complain about unrelated article deletions and got blocked. Hans Adler 19:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Gower School

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

Assertion of notability insufficient under general guidelines WP:N and does not seem to meet the specific criteria in WP:SCH. Prod was removed by IP without comment. Onthegogo (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete As the nom has incorporated my prod rationale, I agree. Monty ₈₄₅ 23:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete - primary schools like Gower are not inherently notable, and there are insufficient sources to prove its notability. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. SNOW: No significant probability this will close delete at this point. joe decker 00:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Howard Griffiths (scientist)

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or the WP:ACADEMIC guideline for scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars. Prod was removed by IP without comment. Onthegogo (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep has a named chair at a famous university. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep per WP:PROF because the subject is the chair and a fellow at an Oxbridge college. While not a "named" chair, that's fairly prestigious. He also has over 100 Ghits on Google scholar and has published in many major scholarly journals. He is also the author of at least one major text. I think that's enough for inclusion. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep as a university department chair. Carrite (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Departmental chair does not give notability according to WP:Prof but an h index of 24 on Google Scholar does. Will the nominator please explain why he ignored this information? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC).
Snow Keep. Adding to Xxan's findings, this subject has a WoS h-index of 28 (query = "Author=(Griffiths H*) Refined by: Subject Areas=(PLANT SCIENCES) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI") – a conclusive pass of WP:PROF #1. I should think this would have been obvious to the nom (who tried PROD previously) had s/he simply bothered to check. No need to claim a pass because of his position as a chair. This is a clear policy-based "keep". Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC).

A example where WoS gives a higher h index than GS. There are others too. It is not generally the case that GS always gives higher cites, as sometimes supposed. We await comment from the nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC).

Keep per high h-index. Nergaal (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Action for our Planet

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

Promotion by TheWorld2011 (talk · contribs). Irrelevant organisation, does not meet WP:NGO (they're nonexistent in the media). bender235 (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete Almost every source is from either the website of the group or an unreliable blog, and no other sources seem to exist. I'd almost say this could be speedied as an advertisement, since the whole article is really just promoting an agenda. —Torchiest _edits 22:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom. All sources are from the organization (that's right, I just used American spelling!) itself or unreliable activist publications. No coverage in reliable, third-party media sources. BurtAlert (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Black Norse

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

Contested PROD. My PROD rationale was: "I see nothing to substantiate any of this stuff in either the references or Google. It is just a heap of non-notable and unverifiable speculation. The BBC "reference" isn't even remotely relevant.", to which I would add that it is original research. The author has contested the PROD and posted his reasons on the talk page. DanielRigal (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom. This definitely looks like original research. BurtAlert (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete I tried and failed to find any reliable sources. Web results seem split between a metal band and discussion of the casting of Idris Elba in Thor, with no non-Knowledge hits (that I saw in the first half dozen pages or so) being about this legend. gnfnrf (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Project No One Leaves

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

Unsure about notability (does WP:NONPROFIT apply?), sources are shaky (only few mention the project at all). bender235 (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete: No indication of notability and with all the external links within the article, it seems like a website. BurtAlert (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to strike my delete vote (for lack of a better term) due to laziness on my part and apologize for any biting. In light of the new sources, this is definitely a keep. BurtAlert (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep This group is associated with Harvard Legal Aid Bureau. This is a valid group with a long history. The page does needs work to comply with Wiki standards.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Which one is the "valid group" with the "long history"? Project No One Leaves or Harvard Legal Aid Bureau? If it's only the latter, we should think about a merge. --bender235 (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Both are valid groups. Project No One Leaves is independent from the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, as it involves chapters throughout Boston and the country. It was founded by Bureau members, however, and refers many cases to the Bureau. — Saalevine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC).

Keep - It seems like there is adequate third-party sourcing to get this one over the notability bar. See, for example, this article from the Harvard Law Bulletin, "Staunching the Foreclosure Crisis: ‘Project No One Leaves’ keeps people in their homes." Carrite (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - A quick reminder here to all not to bite the newcomers... This article seems to have been created in good faith and should, in fact, clear the notability bar. It's a bit of a mess in terms of style, which is not surprising given that it seems to be a first effort by the editor. I'll work on it. Carrite (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - For additional evidence of notability, see the following article in a scholarly journal: Nicholas Hartigan, "No One Leaves: Community Mobilization as a Response to the Foreclosure Crisis in Massachusetts," Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, vol. 45, pp. 181-204.

Comment - Full rewrite completed, will the AfD nominator please have a look at it and offer additional comments. Carrite (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep This is a student run volunteer group that has had success at finding ways to keep "at risk" homeowners in their homes. — Lissyu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 01:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC).

The result was delete. In most cases userfication is an option in cases like this but not IMHO for a 13 year old. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Ray-Butler

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

Self-promotional autobiography by 13-year old Sparkyomega (talk · contribs). No notability per WP:CREATIVE. I suggest a move to his user namespace. bender235 (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete. A kid making videos for Youtube does not come close to warranting an article on Knowledge. As a side note, there is no Guinness record under the name "Samuel Ray-Butler" or "Aaron Butler". Also, there is no video named "Apocalyptorithic Children" on Youtube, much less one with 1 million hits. Total hoax? BurtAlert (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Userfy per WP:BITE and Knowledge:User pages. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Samuel Ray-Butler (born Aaron Butler; April 1st 1997) is an English Director, Producer, Editor, Script Writer, Actor and a cunt appearing in many films... Hmmmmmm. Carrite (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Vandalism fixed. Gee, more vandalism by an anonymous IP account, what are the odds??? How many years is it going to take Knowledge to figure out that it needs to implement a Sign-In-To-Edit policy? Regardless, this soon-to-be 14 year old renaissance man is not notable in WP terms. Carrite (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Robert Duncan George Anderson

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

Non-notable cricketer: fails WP:ATH and WP:CRIN Johnlp (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I had PRODed this article a number of days ago for the above reasons. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Johnlp (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The subject has only played at schoolboy level, which is short of the level required for notability under WP:ATHLETE, and I can see no evidence of the significant coverage in independent reliable sources required by the general notability guideline. Maybe in a couple of years he'll get into the KwaZulu-Natal senior team - if and when that happens we can have an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete the whole shebang. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

ID Flow

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable software product. No assertion of notability and no sources. Previous AfD closed as no-consensus: received only two responses (one from an apparent single-purpose account): Knowledge:Articles for deletion/ID Flow KFP (contact | edits) 21:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar pages for the same company's other products. The parent article Jolly Technologies was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7, but since A7 doesn't apply to products... (prod not possible since one was previously challenged):

delete Gotta agree with nom on this one. The sources are not exactly 3rd party RS style links, and not plentiful enough. Just not enough coverage outside of a couple of mentions in trade mags. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete and salt Not notable, never likely to meet notabillity requirements either. Can't find WP:RS Chzz ► 21:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
delete all 3, non notable software, references would not count as independent. My ealier prod was removed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Far and Away (band)

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

Alleged to be a copy of Demon Hunter in 2009. Still looks like a copy of Demon Hunter. I thought it better to bring it here where people who know Christian music may be able to say if Far and Away do exist, or are just a figment of the imagination of a blocked sockpuppet. Peridon (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

delete all the albums referenced point to albums by a different artist. All of everything point to an artist of a different name. That alone calls for a delete, imo. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

delete The whole article was a copy of Demon Hunter from the beginning and only had some names changed. A Google search turns up no information about a band called Far and Away from the Philippines and searching for Far and Away with Dwight Noga only turns up references to this page. Even if if this band does or did exist, they probably don't meet notability standards anyway. Theonethird (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
delete Looks to be a cut & paste job with minor alternations from the Demon Hunter article back in July 2009 . Probably a hoax or at least very unreliable. Royal broil 03:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete: A band with this name may exist, but it looks like thie was cut & paste from the other article at it's ealiest edit by a user tagged as a sockpuppet. -MrFizyx (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Consensus appears to be in favor of keeping the article. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant 14:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

CardHub.com

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

Previous discussion at Knowledge:Deletion_review/Log/2011_February_19#CardHub.com

With an Alexa Traffic Rank of 224,938 it is fair to say that this website does not meet WP:WEB. bender235 (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

keep I don't really care about alexa ranking, I'm more of a source kinda guy, and the article has a large number of references from reliable sources that appear to meet general notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep I don't see Alexa rank in WP:WEB, notability is about coverage, not use or popularity. That said, alot of those references either are unrelated to the notability of CardHub, or are only referencing a study by CardHub. None the less, it appears there are enough valid notability sources to pass the notability threshold. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep - a closer look at the references shows a lot aren't that great or independent, but there's at least one CNN article with in depth coverage and a number of others about a study by CardHub. Seems sufficient to me.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep Ample sources available, as I mentioned in the deletion review. Glad to see the article is back now, sources added. Dream Focus 22:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Neutral. Although there are plenty of sources, I have to point out that many do not provide levels of "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. For example, many of the sources from source #18 through #33, as of the version I am viewing (), only mention CardHub.com as a source of statistics, without in-depth coverage of CardHub.com itself and what it actually does. In my opinion, these sources do not "address the subject directly in detail". Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with what you are saying, in principal, but it would appear that CardHub.com is very frequently used as a source of statistics, and many examples are given in the citations. That alone speaks volumes about the company and their notability, when taken as a whole, as many RS qualified sources consider them reliable enough (and in essence, notable enough) to quote. By itself, perhaps not enough, but taken as a whole it would appear to bolster the notability of the company. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 19:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Skrein

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

This article is biography of a living person about a rapper that lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The article was created by Dented1 (talk · contribs) which may indicate some conflict of interest as this artist's label is Dented Records. He has put out one album, and has worked with many other artists, but none of this satisy the particulars of WP:MUSICBIO. Whpq (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete, unable to find significant cover in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 22:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete' I gave sourcing this a shot, and didn't find sourcing demonstrating WP:GNG nor claims that meet WP:MUSICBIO. --joe decker 21:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to B roads in Zone 4 of the Great Britain numbering scheme. Jujutacular 03:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

B4632

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

NOTE: Page is now at B4362, the correct name (see below), with the redirect marked for speedy deletion PamD (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Roads. Jay _{Σεβαστός} 19:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete The actual B4632, formerly the section of the A46 between Stratford-on-Avon and Cheltenham and distinctly more scenic than its replacement, would arguably be notable (though still probably better treated along with the A46 rather than in a separate article). However, the article is actually about the B4362 and as appallingly edited as the wrong title would suggest. PWilkinson (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well perhaps someone could mabye move the page so it has a more appropiate title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axelstevo (talk • contribs) 15:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Done - page is now at correct title. PamD (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a (merge and) redirect to B roads in Zone 4 of the Great Britain numbering scheme would be in order? Bencherlite 21:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Redirect to B roads in Zone 4 of the Great Britain numbering scheme. Very few B-roads are notable, and checking for available sources this wouldn't appear to be one of them. But it is a plausible search term, and since it's already mentioned in the list a redirect seems reasonable. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Curtain ring

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

Declined PROD, the rationale behind which was "Very small part of household paraphernalia that in no way qualifies for an encyclopedia article. Can't believe there's no speedy criteria that this fits" Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Yes it's a small piece of household paraphernalia, but perhaps you could explain exactly why doesn't that qualify it for an article? Keys are small household paraphernalia, as are key rings, and they both have their own articles. Why single out curtain rings? Kwai junket (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep for much the same reasons, drawer pull is another example. Soccer star99 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

May I be so bold as to point you both in the direction of WP:OTHERSTUFF? Taking this article, and the subject, on its own merits, we have no reason to keep it. Just because a thing exists, doesn't mean it should have an article. There is not a long history of important technological innovation or design behind a curtain hook. Nor is there a proliferation of in-depth dedicated coverage about them. At the very very most it should redirect to curtains, although even that's a stretch. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep because shower curtain rings were an important part in the movie Planes, Trains and Automobiles. And the whole they are an actual common object thing, as per above. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep Being very small is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete with fire: this article is total bollocks created as an act of vandalism.--Milowent • 19:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Why does it matter if it was created as an act of vandalism? You're not judging the entry for its merits but have taken a rather more prejudiced look at the matter 90.193.31.216 (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Strong Merge or Strong Redirect to Curtain as the subject, considered independently, does not appear to have any significant history. The Curtain article is not over-long. Rings, hooks, eyelets and similar curtainy paraphernalia may be discussed there. A separate article is only warranted if the subject is independently significant or takes up too large a proportion of the main article, neither of which appears to be the case. I should point out, too, that this AfD shouldn't be a discussion of whether the subject is notable for inclusion, only whether it is notable for inclusion as a separate article. I say yes to the former but no to the latter. LordVetinari (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Conditional Keep Out of all the lousy articles this person has been creating for the smallest most mundane things in life, this one seems to be the only one that might be somewhat useful. However, I definitely think it will need some cleanup. I would encourage you to look up the creator's other contribs before making a decision. Every article they have created has either been turned into a redirect or is up for deletion. Illinois2011 (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Unconditional Keep If it needs cleanup, it needs cleanup. If the creator of the article made some duds, xe made some duds. Neither of those would be a reason. Think about it this way: If Willy On Wheels create the article on "The United States" with some useful information and really messed-up formatting, would you delete it? (We're assuming it hadn't already been created). Of course you wouldn't! If the topic is notable, it stays. Period. The question of whether it is notable is more borderline, but should in no way be affected by either of the factors described in the opinion above me. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 06:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Merge to Curtain. There doesn't seem to be much potential for expansion, and the information about parts of curtains can stay together instead of split between the main article and stubs such as this. The "improvisations" paragraph just seems to be random references, they don't seem to be notable or appropriate uses of curtain rings. Curtain rod should also be merged. Peter E. James (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Merge - to curtain. Not really more room for logical expansion here, and the info would fit comfortably there. Yaksar (let's chat) 08:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep meets every criteria for a stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A Last Stand

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

The article is about a painting by a painter, whose notability is also questionable, a preliminary research only point to blog of semi-professional painters or photographers, also tried to find any coverage by any newspaper or magazine, even a mention, could not find anything related to this painting. If the painting has a background, influence or history it should be mentioned with reliability, because I couldn't also find anything about it. Eduemoni 19:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Simply irrelevant. --bender235 (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete. The artist appears (at least marginally) notable to me, but there's no indication that this painting needs a separate article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete as per WP:GNG, as there is nothing to merge here. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete; I declined the speedy, but I was going to PROD it myself. This works just fine too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Daria McGrain

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

Non-notable comics artist. She has received, as far as I can tell, precisely zero coverage in reliable sources. There is a page on Comic Book Database here , but that isn't sufficient for notability. Robofish (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete some mangaka with tiny notability.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk 00:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I cannot find coverage in reliable sources, either. Seems like a figure with minor success in a niche genre. Rnb (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Redirection does not strike me as useful, but can always be done editorially. Sandstein 05:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Foreign object (professional wrestling)

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

I PRODed this which was removed by an IP. Although the IP made good effort to add sources, they are all niche publications, and all not terribly prominent in mention (except for one source). Doesn't meet GNG. NativeForeigner /_Contribs 22:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Merging the relevant information to List of professional wrestling terms would be a good idea if this article is to be deleted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Redirect to Glossary of professional wrestling terms. There is no sourced information to merge, and it can always be added to the glossary when sources are provided. Nikki♥311 19:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

delete or weak redirect Not really a justification for a separate article since the general meaning is the same in or out of wrestling. Not sure a redirect is going to serve much purpose, but can be justified more than an article. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Weak delete not enough sourcing to show this is notable enough to warrant extensive coverage outside the list of terms or general wrestling articles.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Personera. Sandstein 05:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sheraan Amod

AfDs for this article:

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

previously closed by a non-admin when it may have been appropriate to relist a 2nd time, blatantly fails WP:BIO. the sources are mostly unreliable. hardly any coverage previous keep argument relied on poor WP:GOOGLEHITS reasoning. LibStar (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to Personera. Not notable, but it can't hurt to keep it as a redirect. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect as per Roscelese, I see sufficient sources to verify existence, enough for the redirect. Agree what coverage I can find doesn't rise to GNG. --joe decker 00:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect as above. (Is Personera actually notable?) Founder and CEO of a startup company. There is one significant article about him from a Reliable Source, the Mail & Guardian, but notability requires more than that. --MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that it is, you've got a point. --joe decker 03:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Christopher H.K. Lee

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

Self-promotional autobiography by Cartoonmation (talk · contribs). No notability per WP:CREATIVE. I suggest a move to his user namespace. bender235 (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete as unsourced BLP, sole ref is really an external link, with no mention of him. Hairhorn (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete, it's a resume, not an article, and needs sources to be one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Smerge to userspace. A short autobiography is OK there, but not a whole resume. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Per CSD A1, very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Eduemoni 15:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note - AfD template and all of the credits were removed, and I have added them back. _Blake 16:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete as unsourced BLP. Not a speedy situation, in my opinion. Showing substantial published work and possibly inclusion-worthy if sourcing can be mustered. Carrite (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete unless reliable third-party sources can be found demonstrating a pass of WP:GNG. Google news does back up the claim that he is/was an executive producer at madebykiddies, but that is not really an assertion of notability and the articles I found didn't say anything nontrivial about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Lack of WP:RS is a deal-breaker, as has been mentioned several times above. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC).
Delete. For all of the reasons stated above. Spidey104 16:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Don Schieferdecker

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

Violates WP:BLP1E Shearonink (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete - could be considered an attack page, but particularly, violates WP:NOTNEWS.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete, sooner rather than later. --bender235 (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Extremely Baised article, would be difficult to rewrite encyclopediatically. Also a WP:BLP1E problem. ~ Matthewrbowker 04:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Lacks WP:NPOV, also the article is deeply emerged into biased information, not to mention the 1 Event problem. Eduemoni 15:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E and by close similarity to the example at Knowledge:Coatrack#The Attack Article of what constitutes a coatrack Knowledge:Attack page. Page still shows its roots as as a blatant attack page by a single purpose account with someone with an axe to grind, apparently to do with gay rights. Such pages violate policy. --Closeapple (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of airports in Ireland. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant 14:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

List of aerodromes of Ireland

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

Duplicate of the much better List of airports in Ireland. There are two redlinked ones from here that are not included in List of airports in Ireland, Dowth Hall Co. Louth and Knocksedan Heliport Co. Dublin, but those can be added if they can be sourced. The rest are all included already. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect: make it a redirect because the List of airports in Ireland contains both airports and aerodromes, however, there is no real necessity to separate the two. ww2censor (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Merge airport list to this list, this is the much better named article. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Is "aerodrome" better than "airport"? ~~Doing it that way would need a history merge, I think~~ -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to List of airports in Ireland Tofutwitch11 22:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Redirect per Tofutwitch11. That article is better organised, any entries not on that list can be added. Mjroots (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
'Redirect to List of airports in Ireland, normal practice is that all airfields/airports/aerodromes/landing sites/heliports/airbases are all listed in List of airports in Foo in Category:Lists of airports by country. MilborneOne (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete after being moved to Jibawi, per WP:CSD#G7, by Athaenara (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Abdullah Jibawi

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

Self-promotional autobiography by Abdjibawi (talk · contribs). No notability per WP:ACADEMIC. I suggest a move to his user namespace. bender235 (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete for Sure Knowledge does not allow people to write a page on themselves, if he is notable a third party editor will create the page.Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned here and here in independent sources. If its a keep it is a very weak one. Although a self-promo which should be nuked, the book he wrote published by Oxford Press and his position in the British Arab Medical Association is notable.... But lack of third party sources about him beyond Oxford and the fact it is a self-promo would lean towards Weak delete.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete, h-index of 3, no important contributions to humanity. Abductive (reasoning) 14:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete. While he did author that book, it is not widely held (<30 institutions). This may be due to the fact that the book was published last year and that it may become very influential in the future, but WP:CRYSTAL does not permit us to replace (future) evidence with speculation. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC).

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Scholar Athlete Academy by Ben Summers

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

This article is about a sports training academy/company that has no significant coverage in reliable sources. The sole reference in the article is a press release, and there is no other coverage that I am able to find to establish notability. Note that there is a related AFD at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Daniel Summers. Whpq (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete Article fails to meet primary criteria for notability of companies of significant coverage by independent sources (WP:COMPANY#Primary_criteria). Article's source consists only of company's own press release with an external link to company's website. Searching the web, I only find the same company press release. —Bagumba (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. My research reached the same conclusions as Whpq's and Bagumba's--no indicia of notability here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete Knowledge is not a free advertising site.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete. No independent verifiable sources to establish notability. It's based on a press release issued by the subject. Appears to be promotion of the subject. Cbl62 (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Per Paul McDonald and Cbl62, delete self-promotion. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Raheem Alibhai

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

Not notable footballer, fails WP:NFOOTY. Oleola (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life 16:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Has not played in a fully professional league, so he fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and has not received any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to meet the general notability guideline. Argyle 4 Life 16:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete - having never played in a fully pro league, he fails WP:NSPORT and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Lester Lefton

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

Person of little importance or relevance to Knowledge's scope Ojibberish (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep, president of a major university, widely covered in media. Meets all inclusion criteria. Suggest Speedy Keep as bad faith nomination. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep Easily passes WP:PROF especially #5 (The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.). I would say President counts as a distinguished appointment. --Selket 20:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Speedy keep, clearly meets WP:PROF #6 and no real basis has been articulated to override that. Article could use a bit of cleanup, however.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy keep as university president. Sheesh. Carrite (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Julius Emanche

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

Not notable footballer, fails WP:NFOOTY. Oleola (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life 16:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Has not played in a fully professional league, so he fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and has not received any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to meet the general notability guideline. Argyle 4 Life 16:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete - without appearances in a fully pro league or significant coverage, this article clearly fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Well argued and reasoned discussion resulting in a rough consensus that there is just enough third party coverage to justify one of those "occasional exceptions" to WP:NFF.--Kubigula (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Superman (film project)

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

Fails WP:NFF, which states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks — there is no "sure thing" production." It continues "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available." I cannot see, at this stage, given that all the information was copied verbatim from Superman in film#2012 reboot and sits happily on that page, any reason why this article would justify an exception to this guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep Sufficient sources to maintain stand alone page. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:50 28 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S., you forgot to add this to the AFD log. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:28 28 March 2011 (UTC)

So you elected to put "redirect" when you were worried there was a chance that the article would get deleted, then when you saw that someone else would argue the case for the page you changed it to "keep". Of course, you're entitled to change your mind, but... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Drop the attitude, Jack. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:17 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay - Apologies if I seemed not to assume good faith. Trust you have no problem that I have restored this edit and strikethrough, so as to restore the integrity of this discussion's history. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay - so you do have a problem with that - not sure how other editors feel about not preserving the history of this discussion correctly. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that Knowledge:AfD#How to discuss an AfD states: "Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between <s> and </s> after the *, as in "▪ ~~Delete~~ Speedy keep"" --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep there is enough significant coverage by reliable resources of this topic to support WP:GNG. The article can be maintained in away as not to intrude on the merit of WP:NFF. These are outlined at WP:FILMPROJECT. The Avengers (film project) and The Hobbit (2012 film) are both examples of former film projects that were successfully maintained in this way and have since transitioned to standard film articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A couple of comments to add here (some of which I have repeated elsewhere).

1) WP:FILMPROJECT is not a guideline, but a single point of view.

2) What's the point of the specific notabilty guidelines such as WP:NFF, if they can be superseded by the general notability guidelines? The guideline at WP:NFF deals specifically with articles like this, and the creation of these pages is in direct contravention of this. Unless there is an exceptional amount of well-sourced material that cannot be housed on subject articles, where common sense dictates that it needs a breakout article, then WP:NFF should be followed. This clearly doesn't apply here as the exact same material was used.

3) The Avengers (film project) and The Hobbit (2012 film) were exceptions due to the sheer volume of information that couldn't be housed on the subject page. There is nothing exceptional here that cannot be (and indeed is not already) housed on Superman in film. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Avengers (film project) had a very similar amount of coverage when it started so this too is also an exception. The topic alone has received enough coverage that no matter if the film is never produced that the development alone is notable. Also WP:NFF is not LAW that demands to be obeyed by its letter, it is more important to be intune with its spirit which we have shown can be done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the "spirit" of WP:NFF is to avoid opening the floodgates for speculative articles on future films that may or may not be made. Unfortunately the recent introduction of this "film project" concept has done just that. Editors seem to think that if they bung "(film project)" on the end of a future film, it is no longer subject to the guidelines lay down in WP:NFF. I would also suggest that if, at this stage, the film was cancelled, it would still be best placed on the Superman in film article along with all the other cancelled Superman film projects. Not sure if this is the "acid test", but it still seems the appropriate place right now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"Significant coverage" as stated by WP:GNG is the standard for all of Knowledge. Articles that do not meet this criteria should not be kept, so I do not worry about these "floodgates". This one particular article does however have enough significant coverage.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:49 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep enough WP:RS to overcome the WP:CRYSTAL concerns Chzz ► 13:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of sources out there on this upcoming film. HeartSWild (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment It would be interesting to see more people address how they feel the WP:NFF guideline fits into this. It clearly fails this, but some editors are not making reference to this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The project is currently in production, as is other film projects The Avengers, The Hobbit. Claiming that they are exceptions is a dull way of making your argument. This provides enough coverage to maintain a stand alone article. as for WP:NFF, this is a notable film with monterous publicity. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:47 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Again to clarify the film is not in production, it is in pre-production. However the stage of development has no bearing here because the coverage already satisfies WP:GNG.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. WP:NFF is really quite clear on this point, and I don't see the need to split this off from Superman in film - the material hardly overwhelms that article. If consensus here is to keep, there needs to be a discussion on the status of NFF, because the section quoted by the nominator seems designed to discourage exactly this type of article. BryanG (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's quite apparent that WP:NFF is more restrictive than GNG. The question is whether or not it should be so restrictive that it disallows articles that would otherwise be kept per RS/WPN/WPV/GNG. The WP Aviation Accident Task Force faced a similar issue in that its article nobility guidelines at WP:AIRCRASH were seen as too lenient. In the end, WPAIRCRASH was rewritten to expound GNG and WPEVENT. I think that needs to be the case with WPNFF also. - BilCat (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep The article has enough reliable sources to meet WPV, WPN, and GNG. - BilCat (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep as a "film project" title, in that it is generating plenty of independent RS press prior to the start of principal photography, at which point it can be changed to a film as Avengers recently was. Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete - The Superman film series has had a long history of not being able to get films off the ground, even when they had a cast (just look at Superman in film to see for yourself). At this time, I would revert to pointing to WP:NFF and there is nothing about this "project" that screams it needs its own page as of right now. When they actually start filming and start releasing information about filming, then we can revisit this. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Merge with Superman in film. If the film for some reason gets cancelled the project will only be an anecdote and surely merged with the mother article. Which means it shouldn't have an article of its own now either, even though it's still alive. Smetanahue (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If in the event the film is canceled there would still be enough RS coverage to warrant its own article. The article at that point would just be another article about a canceled film (which we do have).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is basically just a series of mentions of everybody who at some point has been involved in the project. If it gets cancelled I even doubt that all of it will be considered as one single project, but rather a number of failed attempts to make a Superman movie within a certain time period. For a cancelled film to be notable, I think it needs to have made a significant impact despite never being released, which I'd say is true for failed Superman movies at large, but not for this incarnation in particular. It's just anecdotes and potential background info for a film that eventually gets made. Smetanahue (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep or Redirect/Merge(preferrably) I am getting less of a fan of film projects ~~because of these AFD's~~ . And let's face it they are a sign of desperation of one film to be a article when they are still just fine and comfortable to be a redirection to the film series article. If I was still a fan of these film projects I would have done a long time ago with what Rusted Auto Parts did. But knowing something like this (the AFD I am referring to) would happen made me snub the idea of doing so. I am sure filming is close by and I think we need to learn to be patient with that just a little bit because it's getting old. There's a reason why WP:NFF was created and if we keep on doing so we might just as well change that rule. And also I am aware of WP:Film project too because I started it but keep in mind of WP:Worm as well. Even though this film seems to qualify on being acceptable on the certain essay. Jhenderson 19:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I need to be clear though. An AFD is not really why I am not a big fan of it. It's more of what I said after that they are a sign of desperation.I mainly feel like a consensus needs to be done before creating these kind of articles. Because these editors that constantly AFD these kind of articles do make good points even though they normally are the minority. So we may need to hear there opinions first so we don't have these AFD's. Even though they aren't really bad they don't need be used on every single film project article that comes by. And I also suggest patience. WP:NFF shouldn't be snuffed very much. WP:GNG is not primarily referring about films. While WP:NFF does and there's a reason why it exists. Just being neutral about this just like what Knowledge should be. :) Jhenderson 20:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete in favor of the section at Superman in film. Normally I'd say "merge" but what is in the larger article already covers what is here. - J Greb (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment The duplicate content in the Superman in film article can easily be replaced with a shorter summary of Superman (film project), so that's not really a reason to delete it. I haven't written a shorter summaary yet as I was promoting taking this article to AFD, and wanted to await the outcome of the AFD first. If this article is kept, then I or another user can write the short summary with a {{main}} link in the section. - BilCat (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment This is absurd. Why delete all this information because "It doesn't meet WP:NFF. It meets several other qualities, (WP:GNG, WP:FILMPROJECT). Like what editor TriiipleThreat stated, even if the project gets cancelled (highly unlikely now) it still has enough references to maintain a stand alone page. And since this isn't a fully blown film page, it's only wise to make exception for this as we did with The Avengers and The Hobbit. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:17 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of articles does not equate to deletion of information. All of this information is already on the Superman in film page, so there is no loss there. The "Superman (film project)" page just does not need to exist. The history of Superman in film shows that these films have a hard time getting made. It took almost 2 decades for them to get Superman Returns made, and that "project" was about 5 different films at any given moment. Films that had scripts, casts, directors, etc and still did not get made. Given the history of the character, there is no reason to say that this someone meets the "exception" rule that recent projects like The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, or The Hobbit were granted. That, and the fact that there really is not that much information. There is a lot of initial castings, and some basic discussions of trying to get the film off the ground, that's it. Everything else is rumor. Not really screaming, "I need a page to myself". The only reason I'm not saying "redirect" is because "Superman (film project)" is not a viable search option for the average reader. BTW, people keep saying "it meets the GNG", but if you read the GNG carefully, it also says: "Knowledge is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage." - Right now, we're not actually getting substantial information. In addition, just because a topic may meet the GNG, does not mean that it automatically requires an article to itself. It's also about the amount of information being presented. BIGNOLE (Contact me)

To expand on your points, everyone keeps waving WP:GNG about, but it also states: "Presumed means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Knowledge is not." I would suspect that when WP:NFF was written, editors looked at this carefully, and discussed that films which had not entered production were not suitable for a stand-alone article.

WP:CRYSTAL states that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." As WP:NFF points out, "The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production." WP:CRYSTAL also goes on to give an example of tropical storms: ""Tropical Storm Alberto (2012)" is not , even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise." I think the same logic can be applied to future films. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "since this isn't a fully blown film page, it's only wise to make exception"? It is an article about a film that has yet to enter production. Therefore a film page, and should be under the same scrutiny as anything else. I don't quite see your logic that we should be more lenient because it hasn't entered production. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and with respect to the editor(s) involved, WP:FILMPROJECT is not a guideline, merely the view of a handful of editors. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You are forgetting what film project articles really are. They are NOT articles about future films or even future events. They are article about the development of a planned film. They do not deal with future occurrences but deal with things that have already come to pass. These articles are carefully worded to to reflect this. As a result WP:CRYSTAL and to a lesser extent WP:NFF are not applicable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This seems like carefully trying to circumvent the guidelines in place in order to create an article. Let's face it this IS an article about a future film and it IS an article about a future event. And, in fact, if it is about "the development of a future film" rather than these two, then this particular article should definitely be deleted, as, unlike previous "film projects" like The Hobbit (for which I can understand the necessity of a stand-alone page, due to the sheer depth of coverage) there has been no development to speak of. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It is exactly as I stated but you are partially correct. Film projects articles were conceived with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF at heart so that they would not intrude on either of them. To understand this you should go back read the AfD were they originated, Knowledge:Articles for deletion/The Avengers (2012 film). Furthermore this original film project could also have been housed at Avengers (comics) in other media but that article like this one fulfilled all the requirements set by WP:GNG.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Also according to the article, development of this particular project has been underway for over two years. There is an abundance of reliable sources on the subject. If the article fails to express this concern then there is no reason to think that it cannot be fixed by normal editing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"In development" can mean anything though (or nothing). I'm more and more convinced that WP:NFF took into account WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL when the guideline was written. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Rob Sinden (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a film project page. They have been appearing lately after the article were sourced enough to have a stand alone article. Piece the puzzle from here. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 9:52 29 March 2011 (UTC)

These so-called "film project" pages are a new phenomenon. This is probably only the fifth or sixth of its kind, and so far they seem to have only been left to exist after close scrutiny in exceptional cases. My opinion (and I am not alone) is that this particular article does not pass this close scrutiny against the guidelines, and should not exist outside of (in this case) the Superman in film page. There are other editors who disagree with this. This is fine. This is the spirit of Knowledge. I think we have brought this to AfD as a "test case" to see whether more clarity is needed in the guidelines and to reach a consensus as this issue comes up everytime one of these "film project" pages appears. Please do not be so discourteous as your reply above and suggest I "piece the puzzle from here". You have yet to produce a convincing argument for your view, which, you changed to and from "redirect" after requesting that this was not brought to AfD as you didn't want to risk deletion of the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Threat, but to me titling an article "film project" instead of "film" is nothing more than a disguise of what it actually is...which is an article about a future film. Call it what you want, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....it's a duck. The reality is, there is no guarantee that this "project" will be anything other than that at this moment. Nothing in the history suggests that (actually, the history suggests quite the opposite). Based on WP:SIZE, there isn't this grand amount of content that cannot possibly be housed at Superman in film - already sits nicely there. That could even be trimmed because, a part from the ruling about making a film as soon as possible...which itself isn't a guarantee since they had 2 years to get this film made and the time is running out, the stuff about the two families retaining the comic book rights and the S-shield has nothing to do with this film unless explicitely stated. So that can be removed. In addition, the stuff about Superman (1978) inspiring Christopher Nolan isn't directly related to this film either. It's anecdotal, nothing more. As is the Ben Affleck stuff. It was "rumored" that he was considered for directing, not confirmed. Anyone can start a rumor. That shouldn't even be in the article. So, there really isn't anything here but some press releases on casting and potential start dates. We know nothing about the story, nothing of real substance. This does not need a "film project" tag at this time. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My argument isn't convincing to you because you keep changing yours. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:57 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you seem to be singling me out, but my point of view on this is clear and has remained consistent. You can hardly say that I "keep changing" my argument (which you have also called "dull"). I would however, bring your attention to this edit. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Fact is the amount of notable and verifiable reliable sources on this project is extensive and I am positive that the article as is does not incorporate all of them. Whatever problems the article has can be fixed by normal editing and does not meet any of Knowledge's reasons for deletion. In fact the film not need be produced, if production was halted or canceled it would only create even bigger onslaught of media coverage. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Circular I know, but how about "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" as a reason for deletion? Isn't WP:NFF a "relevant notability guideline"? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Threat, you cannot make assumptions like. I could easily state the alternative, that if the project was cancelled tomorrow no one would care after tomorrow and there would not be any "media onslaught". There's hardly been a "media onslaught" since the film was announced, even since Henry Cavill was announced as Superman. The GNG says "significant coverage" and then clarifies "not simply news reports". Where is the significant coverage of this film? There isn't any. What we have are announcements for people involved and then random backstories about these people that are not a direct relation to the film itself. So, how does that meet the significant coverage aspect of the GNG? It doesn't. Having "multiple" sources does not equate to significant coverage. The GNG says that as well. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nole, you are misrepresenting WP:GNG, which makes no mention of news reports. I assume you are referring to WP:EVENT which is not applicable here since we are not dealing with an event. As far as significant coverage is concerned they are easily available over the internet and in-print magazines and newspapers, they do exist. Again whatever faults the article currently has can fixed and the article expanded by normal editing, see WP:ATD.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The basic notability guideline covers events (scroll down), and a film is considered an "event", just as much as a sports game is considered an "event". You have not shown significant coverage. Even doing a Google search does not show significant coverage. Again, you cannot misconstrue "significant coverage" with "multiple sources", especially when I just did a quick check of two random sources and upon reading found that they were either from unreliable sources, or completely misrepresented from the original source. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It also includes a link: "For notability guidelines for specific kinds of articles, see Category:Knowledge notability guidelines". As this is a "specific kind of article", I really don't think WP:NF can be dismissed in favour of WP:GNG as casually as some editors seem to want to do. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Side comment: For those proposing deletion, I propose they explore Incubation as a healthy alternative.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel that's too necessary because it's already userfied by a user who really wanted to be a part of this. Jhenderson 15:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea that existed, which is why I feel Incubation > userfication.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the Incubation > userfication. The user moved the redirection there after trying to create a article but instead User:-5- gets it back as a redirection because of WP:NFF. So after noticing I helped clean up a little. And I am sure it needs even more cleanup on the way. Jhenderson 15:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep (and/or even Incubate for a VERY brief time and continue work. Yes, I read that it is userfied... but the incubator is locatable and editable by many contributors, and a userspace does not have the same visibility to invite cooperative improvements.) Article title definitely needs to be changed to reflect that the Superman (film project) has its title confirmed as Superman: Man Of Steel. Further, the article should also be expanded and sourced to show that in order to "intentionally disguise the project during the process of filming", production used the fake "working title" of Autumn Frost ( and many, many more, from the early rumors and guesses of 2000 until the growing coverage and confirmations of 2011.) The nominator wrote earlier that he suggests the "spirit" of WP:NFF was to avoid "opening the floodgates" on speculative articles on future films. This is a valid concern... but if an editor were to simply "bung" the words "film project" onto an article, that article will better darn sure have to fly over the bar of the GNG, or suffer the fate of being axed just as might any article that failed to show notability. And I do agree that produced or not, this topic does indeed deserve being metioned in the rather large Superman in film article... but there is simply two much decently sourced content to foist this one into the SiF article without drastic elimination of content to our reader's deficit Several things need be considered: 1. The instruction of guideline is that a topic must be considered "worthy of notice" through having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", 2. The persistance of coverage over many years meets that criteria. 3. The instruction of policy is that it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. 4. The instruction at WP:NFF states "should not", as a caution... not "must not" as if an ironclad rule. 5. All guidelines are headed with the caveat "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply, and 6. The topic does not fail policy. My opinion and conclusions, after reading the current article and reviewing its current sources, and after reviewing the many more available that have not (yet) been used to further expand this article in Knowledge's goal to increase a reader's understanding of the topic, are that A. No "floodgate" has been opened, B. what has been upheld here is that WP:NFF holds independent articles whose topic is an unmade film to a far higher standard than does the governing WP:NF and WP:N, C. this topic meets those far higher standards, and D. this one has been amply qualified to be one of those VERY rare exceptions. Schmidt, 23:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There's the two reason's why I am not fully ok with this. One labeling it as film project is quite cheesy and never really qualifies as the best of a common name. Nobody will search for a title like that and it will make a useless redirection title as well when it's not a film project anymore. I am not sure a common reader will look so highly on that kind of title. Second it looks just as nice as a section and no rules are being broken whatsoever so we don't need to keep debating guidelines whatsoever. I am ok with The Dark Knight Rises because at least we got the same name but to do this on some film that doesn't even have a official title name yet makes me say can't we be patient. Yes it has sources to qualify as a article but that doesn't mean it needs to be split just yet if it's just as nice looking as a section. But the article will be nice though with good editors watching it I have no doubt about that. We just need boundaries on this though. When splitting it is sometimes suggestive to do a consensus on it per WP:Split and AFD's would have been less likely. Jhenderson 00:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Addressing the title "Superman (film project)" was a measure that at best merited discussion on the article's talk page, but not an AFD on what is on an article on a notable topic. But it's here now, and even in the last few hours more sources have come forward confirming the film's title as "Superman: Man Of Steel. I have just modified the lede accordingly based upon newer sources. The article is STILL not calling it a film... and stresses in the lede that the topic is a pre-production project (without actually using that word). Still incubatable, but for a very short time as even more comes forward worth sharing with our readers. Schmidt, 01:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Further thoughts. I can see that we could be getting to the stage where it could be argued that common sense dictates that this would be an exception to the WP:NFF. But in circumstances like this consensus for the split should have been sought beforehand on the talk page at Superman in film. Which, actually, is what I tried to do in the first place before it was suggested to bring it to AfD. As we seem to be arguing a point of technicality, I don't think this AfD will reach a clear consensus. One thing I would like to say, is that if it is deemed that there is a case for a breakout article, why are we treating these articles as anything other than a "film" page - I think these "film project" style articles are misleading. If consensus is that in spite of WP:NFF this article should exist, then it is still an article on a film, albeit not as far advanced in the production process as others. It might be a good idea to update WP:NFF with guidelines for these situations, making reference to the fact that clear consensus should be sought first. I tried to do this by reverting this page to a redirect, and requesting discussion, but my actions were overruled. Any thoughts? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The use of "(film project)" in some article titles was created after some debate as a means to differentiate a title from a an article by the same name. Like The Hobbit (film project) was a response to disambig from The Hobbit. If a name is unknown, it would be pretty much too soon for an actual article expect under extraordinary circumstances. In this case, Superman (film project) was indeed clumsy, even though a good faith effort to disambig from Superman, which is why a name change to Superman: Man Of Steel would be proper now that we have verification, and why I modified the article lede to indicate this. Schmidt, 18:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep - This article clearly has enough reliable sources to meet any WP:V, WPN, or GNG concerns. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete - per NFF. The ravenous appetites of the Hollywood bullshit machine makes sure that any time two people meet in an expensive restaurant to talk about making Little Bunny Foo-Foo: The Fieldmice Strike Back, there will be a gazillion articles about it in gossip magazines and the trades. NFF is there for a reason: to make sure that until the movie actually starts shooting, Knowledge will not be cluttered with these rumor thingies. The FILMPROJECT folks seem to be trying to subvert this sound attitude on the grounds that possible movies which fanboys are drooling over should have articles even if they never happen. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite harsh, but i respect your opinion. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:43 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Harsh indeed (chuckle), but we must admire the least respect the intensity with which it is offered. While we are not discussing the wishes of "drooling fanboys", we are discussing how NFF was meant to properly prevent a flood of speculative articles on topics that did not yet have notability, and discussing a reasonable (and rare) exception to NFF for a demonstrably notable topic. While ANY article could be trimmed to three or four sentences and then stuffed somwhere else, such practice does not serve to increase a reader's understanding of the topic. Stated elsewhere but worth bringing here are several givens (that for clarity I would love to see incorporated into WP:NFF in order to address this issue):

Guideline indicates any topic may be determined as being "worthy of notice" by it meeting general notability through it having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"
Policy allows that it "is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."
Very, VERY rare exceptions to guideline WP:NFF are allowable IF the coverage of the future film is enduring and persistant in multiple reliable sources and over an extended period (thus dealing with "Fanboys" and conflict with WP:NOTNEWS), AND if there is too much verifiable information in an article whose topic is "discussion about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur", to be reasonably placed anywhere else.

That said, and as we look at these on a case-by-case basis, had this simply been an unexpanded stub, a proper merge and redirect would have served. Had it only been "fanboy" gossip, an outright deletion would have been in order. But neither case bears. Schmidt, 18:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I will note for the record that I am the father of an otaku, the husband of a woman who has attended MediaWest for over 30 years now, and a person who has even committed fan fiction myself; so I can make fanboy jokes, like redneck jokes, because I'm talking about me and mine. That said: film project articles about films that may or may not be made, are to me prime examples of the severe recentist bias which the entire Knowledge project displays. That which is recent and American or British, no matter how ephemeral, gets an article, because you can find stories about it in gossip magazines and the like; meanwhile, entire national legislatures are neglected because you can't find something about them in a five-second Google search for English-language sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Noted: You are qualified to colorfully joke about "fanboys". And while myself aware of a "recentism" tendency (usully addressed soundly by WP:NOTNEWS), I made the comment I did to address that notability is to be considered through significant coverage in reliable sources over a many-years period, and not through last week's blurb on a fan page or gossip mag. If such were the only sources available, I would quite agree that we'd have failure of the GNG and no need to consider an exception to NFF. Schmidt, 02:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep - The project has plenty of reliable sources to indicate its notability per WP:N, even if the film never gets made. Rlendog (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I update you that the once was userspace draft is now a article incubator (even though the favor seems to be a keep anyways) The incubator is done in film style so I suppose it can be used when it's a film. Jhenderson 15:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In the incubator, that fomat is fine... simply unsuitable in mainspace until the film IS a film. Schmidt, 00:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete - per WP:NFF. GNG does not address the fact that the film has not commenced principal photography and should not have its own article until such time. The information currently belongs where it is in Superman in film. --JMax (Okay, tell me. What'd I do this time?) 00:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
NFF, a subsection of WP:Notability (films), is not policy and, as a subsection of a notability guideline, is still not some ironclad and immutable rule... which is why ALL guidelines allow consideration of common sense occasional exceptions if they improve the project and further a reader's understanding of a topic. It is policy that addresses discussion of future events, and the general notability guideine addresses how we determine a topic as notable. Per WP:SPLIT, if there is so much sourced information that a proposed target would be overburdened, a separate related article is allowed. And a note: WP:SPLIT does not mean that suitable articles be trimmed to a few sentences simply to make them mergable elsewhere. Schmidt, 20:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Stratus Plug Computer

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

Non-notable - cannot find anything outside blogs, fora and Ionic's own web site - i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The references in the article don't actually mention the Stratus. The Shaspa Bridge is described in the article's reference to it as "a Java based application", i.e. software. Jll (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete I cannot find coverage either. The BBC report used as a reference does not make any reference to it, and the 3rd ref is a press release. This appears to fail to meet the general notability guidelines Chzz ► 14:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. This article is so oddly written that I suspect a copyright issue, though searching for odd strings from the article brings up mostly Knowledge forks. At any rate, it's a sales brochure for some kind of computing plug in for mobile phones that support that kind of thing, I guess. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. "known to have inspired the famous Austin-Morris car company in its naming" is enough to get this speedied before April1. JohnCD (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Austin Morris

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

WP:HOAX: unreferenced, no trace of the supposed scholar online. Article claims that subject "inspired the famous Austin-Morris car company in its naming": Morris Motor Company was founded by a William Morris, and the company was later joined with the Austin Motor Company to form BMC. Shire Reeve (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Facebook link added in this edit by creator adds little further credibility. Shire Reeve (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Shire Reeve (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete Fails for sources and notability. Almost certain hoax. AJHingston (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete "inspired the famous Austin-Morris car company in its naming. " - at age 5? Two separate comanies that merged did not choose their name after a person. Hoax. Chzz ► 14:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete Unable to confirm. Would change my mind if someone could provide appropriate sourcing. HeartSWild (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete Hoax. Southend sofa (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like a hoax to me - a Google search for "Austin Morris" basque only found stuff about cars and underwear -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete For reasons already stated above.Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete Because the article does not clearly provide references to the person. The link provided mentions the Austin Morris car company building cars in the 1920's, how then did a person born in 1947 inspire the car company? Ex Post Facto, the rest of the article may be fabricated. Golgofrinchian (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I've marked this for speedy deletion as a hoax. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sonic recolor

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

Non-notable picture recolor of sonic characters. Possibly neologism, no indication of independent third-party sources, first section is an instruction, second POVy. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete No news hits; seems to be a minor blog/board thing; no evidence of notability (ie, no reliable sources, and I can't find any) Chzz ► 14:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete Non notable fanon item which consists solely of violating copyrights to create a new "original" video game character by giving it a new color. The writing also seems to leech a little bit towards being an attack page towards those who do this. Nate • (chatter) 18:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete As per above. It seems too much of a niche of a niche of a niche to be noteworthy. Golgofrinchian (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete, new term, original research, uncovered in reliable sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete, no evidence of notability, and so poorly written that it would need to be completely rewritten even if it were a worthy article topic. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedily deleted (G11) by Deb. Non-admin closing Deor (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Bleum

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

Advert for a company that is not notable. No significant linkage to the page either. Heywoodg 08:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete, preferably speedily per WP:CSD#G11. I haven't bothered to check for notability because the article content is irredeemably promotional, including the use of the second person to address the reader: "Bleum will significantly reduce your software defects, improve your on-time delivery and give you world-leading governance and transparency". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm speedying it, for the reasons above. Deb (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Danzelle Hamilton

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

Football player who does not meet notability criteria as outlined at WP:NFOOTBALL and does not have enough coverage to warrant inclusion under WP:GNG. NFOOTBALL requires a player to have actually played in a fully professional league and both soccerbase and BBC show he has not played. Conference leagues are not fully professional. Previously deleted at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Danzelle St Louis-Hamilton in 2009 and again at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Danzelle St Louis-Hamilton (2nd nomination) G5'd, but this was not created by banned user and probably expanded from 2009 version ClubOranje 08:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ClubOranje 08:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje 08:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG, and the comments in the previous AfD's. Suggest WP:SALT - if he becomes notable later, it's easy enough to change Chzz ► 14:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league, and therefore fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I agree this player doesn't meet the criteria for his own page and I created this page ages ago while he was with Stoke thinking one day if he makes an appearance for a league team I could move this across, but why has someone gone on to my sandbox and created the page? Jonesy702 (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Not this guy again. Nothing has changed. He still hasn't played in a fully professional league, failing WP:NFOOTBALL, and has received no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to pass WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life 19:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, no delete !votes present. (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Songs from the Road (Jeff Healey album)

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

Also these:

See the Light (The Jeff Healey Band album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Hell to Pay (The Jeff Healey Band album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Feel This (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

A series of articles about albums by Canadian musician Jeff Healey (1966 - 2008). These articles contain track listings and little else. All of these articles fail WP:NALBUMS. These albums did not chart and were not reviewed in multiple reliable sources. Knowledge is not the Allmusic Guide. We should not have articles on albums that only contain track listings. LK (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn based on information from Michig below. --LK (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Obvious keep. "These albums did not chart and were not reviewed in multiple reliable sources" - are you kidding? These were all reviewed in many publications and they all charted in several countries. In the UK these reached numbers 58, 18, and 72 respectively. In the US they reached 22, 27, and 174. Try searching Google News archive for any of these and you'll see lots of reviews. They may need improvement, but that's a reason to improve them, not to delete them.--Michig (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep, as per Michigs rationale, this link to chart placings and the guideline for albums. Not a good nomination. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Can we please have the references to back up the claim that these charted in the US at 22, 27, and 174 respectively? I note that the articles themselves don't claim that any of these albums charted. Also, making the claim that they were "reviewed in many publications" is not helpful if you don't produce the reviews. BTW, the link above goes to a site that does not actually have any information about Jeff Healey's albums. LK (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Click the link. Click where it says 'View Albums'. View the chart placings. That's the official reliable source that proves the albums charted in the UK. I'm not too bothered whether they charted in the US; they charted in the UK and that's enough. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't get any chart positions at that URL. There are plenty of chart aggregators around, Billboard, Allmusic, but here's some links: UK Chart positions, US Chart positions. I pointed you towards Google News for reviews - it would be a waste of my time to stick a load of links in here. Do you seriously think an album that was a hit in both the US and the UK didn't get reviewed?--Michig (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have to click where it says 'VIEW ALBUMS'....off-topic, but ChartStats isn't always 100% accurate. The correct archive to use is the one I linked to. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll withdraw this AfD nomination based on Michig's links above. Dylanfromthenorth, I still get nothing from your link. Have you tried it? BTW, a bit of WP:POLITE would be nice. Did you honestly think that I did not try clicking on the 'view albums' button? LK (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have tried it yes, and assumed you hadn't seen it as it's a little way down the page. It still works for me so don't know why it doesn't for you. A little WP:BEFORE wouldn't go amiss from you if we're being picky. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

North Star Flag

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

This is just a proposal for a new state flag for Minnesota, which was apparently created 22 years ago but has not been adopted by the state. The page is sourced only to the flag designers' own website at Tripod.com and to another site which says that the current Flag of Minnesota was poorly rated, but doesn't mention this new design. The only relevant source I have found on my own says that efforts "to replace with a newer, blockier “North Star Flag” have been unsuccessful". I recommend that this page be deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete lack of coverage in reliable sources; does not seem notable Chzz ► 14:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Also seems like WP:CRYSTAL since any notability would depend on it being taken more seriously in the future than it appears to be now. --MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Big Sky Flag

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

A user's design for a new flag for Montana is a non-notable subject. Step hen 04:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK...Now...how and why is that? What if the designers of the North Star Flag are users? Wolfdog406 (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Speedy Delete No claim made for notability. No external sources. Fails WP:GNG. LK (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete. This article is effectively sourced only to the flag creator's own web page on Tripod.com. (The other source merely states that the current Montana flag design was poorly rated, but doesn't mention this Big Sky Flag.) The fact that someone is proposing a new flag for Montana is not notable unless the state of Montana is actually taking action toward adopting this new flag, and no evidence has been provided that the state is looking to replace its current flag at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete Apparently, this has escaped the attention of any newspaper or television station in the State of Montana. Needless to say, we don't need the image of something that has "(C) 2009-2011 by Michael Riedel All Rights Reserved until it is officially adopted as the new flag of Montana." going with it. The "C" doesn't stand for "copy this if you want to". Mandsford 14:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete not notable Chzz ► 14:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, Knowledge is not for things made up one day. Quasihuman (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Ynyrhesolaf (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Simon Corry

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

The subject of this autobiographical article does not appear to meet WP:BIO. VQuakr (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't seem notable (lack of coverage in reliable sources), I can't find coverage for the claims Chzz ► 14:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete In fact I wouldn't object to a speedy deletion. Promotional unsourced autobiography - in short, spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete as per james. Googled and found zip. Mark 17:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
If someone can provide reputable sources for the claims in this article, it should be kept....if it remains as now with no sources than it should be deleted.Leidseplein (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Moto Roma

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

Fails Knowledge:Notability (organizations and companies). There are zero independent sources that have significant coverage of Moto Roma, or Moto-roma. Trivial and incidental coverage, while insufficient for WP:GNG, is also almost nonexistent. A UK importer briefly mentions that Moto-roma is a brand Zongshen motorcycles are sold under, but there is no independent evidence that this is true. Moto Roma is also the name of an Italian motorcycle dealership, but they sell various Japanese and European brands, not Zongshen. See also Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Moto Roma Virage. Dbratland (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It is odd that what appears to be a brand of motorcycles has generated so little coverage--I can't deny that it has generated little coverage. I created the stub in the first place, of course, but there is little to defend here. I am tempted to place the "rescue" tag on the article, not to derail the deletion process, but to invite other editors, other searchers, perhaps in other languages, to find some sources (and if those sources are not reliable and not enough, then I won't vote to keep the article), but I will only do so if Dbratland agrees--I have already rubbed them the wrong way a bit too much, I fear. What do you say, Dbratland? One final shot for Moto Roma? Drmies (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

From Googling, I discovered a link to a UK company called "E.P. Barrus" - so, I gave them a call. They tell me that "Moto Roma" is not actually a company, but is a brand-name which they use for imported components from China, Taiwan, and possibly other places. So that might explain the difficulty in finding info on the company! Their website is http://www.barrus.co.uk/ - we don't seem to have an article about them. So, as far as this subject goes, I guess this is a delete !vote (for a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources - but I've edited the article a little, so it at least makes more sense, in case anyone can ever rescue it - now, or in the future. Chzz ► 15:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete per Chzz. If anything was going to happen, we'd have an article on Barrus (not Moto Rama), but.. that isn't in the scope of this discussion, and it probably fails RS too. tedder (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think, actually, that is the answer. Whether it is a fresh article, or this one moved - if we wrote an article on Barras, then this could redirect to it. GNews indicates there would be enough for that. Chzz ► 15:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't disagree. Thank you for looking into it. The Barrus connection was uncovered by Dbratland earlier, but that phone call is very helpful. I think that we've reached the end of the tether, tedder, and if this were to be closed by way of SNOW I wouldn't object. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Single-mindedness theory

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

Non-notable theory. It has only been referenced by the thoery's creator in one paper that was published in a non-peer reviewed book. Only other citation offered is to an article that predates the theory, and so cannot be used to establish notability of the theory. No external references to the theory. Previously prodded, prod removed by anonymous IP that wrote the bulk of the article. LK (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete I cant find anything beyond thesaurus and dictionary refs. The article reads like a recipe for cake mix - half baked. No scientific credibility whatever. Mark 17:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete Maybe the author can use Single-mindedness theory to rally enough support to keep this article. As it stands it reads poorly and has little to no notability to back it up.Golgofrinchian (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Not a notable topic, if it's a topic at all--there is single-mindedness, sure, but that does not a theory make. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hybrid automation framework

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

Does not appear to be a notable term, and in fact appears to be spam by Jonathon Wright (talk · contribs). OSborn_contribs. 03:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn_contribs. 03:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

delete - nelogism coined by the article author, using a Knowledge:Single-purpose account. Dialectric (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete Article failsto meet the verifility policy and is a neologism Alpha Quadrant 14:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Joshua Muggleton

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

fails WP:BIO. some of the sources are simply his own website. 2 gnews hits . LibStar (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete Per General Notability guide, not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. LK (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete This young man is to be admired but fails WP:GNG. Strictly speaking this is promotional - G11. Mark 17:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is not yet anything useful to say about this future election. Sandstein 05:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

42nd Canadian federal election

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

Customarily an election article is not created until the current election is completed, which is May 2. WP:CRYSTAL states that "if preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented". The page ~~only contains one documentation (Vancouver Sun), which is for the date.~~ doesn't contain any third party sources. 117Avenue (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete, it's best we handle one federal election at a time. Once we learn of the results of the 2011 fed election? then this article can be 'created'. GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason for creating this article at this time, rather than after May 2, is solely to document the latest possible date for the election. This is important information that complements the current election article which links to this article and establishes the time period for which the Parliament elected in the current election will sit. The law establishing dates for Canadian elections is relatively new and has never fully come into play due to Canada having had only minority governments since then; however it can be and should be documented. Additionally the WP:CRYSTAL article says nothing about a 'custom' of creating an election article only after the last election is complete. Indeed, it is silent on this subject, stating that the 2012 U.S. presidential election is appropriate for an article, whereas the 2020 U.S. presidential election is not--remaining silent on the 2016 U.S. presidential election which would be the roughly equivalent U.S. election. The U.S. situation is not entirely equivalent, either, because the setting of final date for one Canadian election establishes a potential date for the next--giving material appropriate for a Knowledge article. Other material in this article, such as potential party leaders in 2015, may have been speculative in nature but has already been appropriately removed.Dash77 (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying that the 42nd election is required to exist for the 41st election to be properly written isn't a valid point, the link can simply be excluded. I don't think the one source, and one fact (the date), constitutes "well documented". 117Avenue (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added two more references to the article to more clearly document the law under which this fact--the date--is established. Additionally, although my purpose in creating the article had nothing to do with the 2011 Census, someone correctly pointed out that the Census may affect the number of seats/provincial representation in this election. I added some references for that; it could be argued that the 2011 Census represents part of the "preparation" for the next election.Dash77 (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning the law or the date, which I knew was correct. The "documented speculation" count still stands at zero. 117Avenue (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I just read a whole lot of articles about the election in Knowledge and the major trouble is that there is only a chart showing where the NDP is strong if you look at a very obscure article. Whoever wrote Knowledge isn't making it easy to find info. Kewlarticle (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with a deletion discussion? 117Avenue (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep, but possibly incubate The page is documented on more than just the date, as the actual procedure may change for the election (and is only relevant to the 42nd, but not the current). Either way, both the nom and the one voter so far seem to agree that it will be notable in five weeks, so it may as well be kept, incubated or as a user page, if that's a more preferable solution. Further, the theoretical date isn't speculation, it's law, unless the House decides not to follow that law. Ravendrop 03:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep I don't see a valid reason why this page should not be kept, since it would be recreated after the current election anyways. I don't think it interferes with the current election's page, and by keeping it, it's not going to be a red link on the various templates that link to "next election". Maybe my rationale is unclear, but deleting a page that will be recreated very soon and that is not WP:CRYSTAL seems to me like "bureaucratic-creep". Cheers - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep If deleted, it would be re-created only a month from now, so reasoning "it's not notable now, but it will be soon", along with the WP:CRYSTAL arguments presented, both seem to be weak. Bcperson89 (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete This article contains no real information. About the only thing certain is that there will be a 42nd election. We also say there will be an election on October 19, 2015 unless there isn't. That's basically a tautology. One can make an equally valid prediction, by saying the world will end on October 19, 2015, unless it doesn't. Everything happens on a particular date, unless it doesn't. Canada doesn't have fixed election dates. The legislation requiring them has already been ignored (in 2008 an election was called, without a no confidence vote). And there's also the possibility of the law being changed by parliament (since it's not part of the constitution). We say how many seats are in the current parliament, but not how many there will be in the future, because we don't know. So, there will be 308 seats, unless there isn't. Great. Articles like this are great for the US, when there are numerous meaningful, notable things that can said about future elections. We should employ the general notability guideline. Where are the multiple independent substantial sources covering the 42nd federal election? So far, all I see are half a dozen sources that don't mention 2015. Notice how the first citation mentions this year's election, but makes no mention at all, of 2015. This entire article is basically WP:SNYTH with a dab of WP:OR. Let's wait till we actually have elections on pre-determined dates, before we pretend they exist in Canada. --Rob (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The article asserts that the 42nd election will be held no later than October 19, 2015, but that it might be earlier. In a democracy the date of the next election is, in and of itself, a notable piece of information because it establishes an important parameter of the current election--how long the term to which Parliament will be elected is. I feel that the references I've already cited make it quite clear that the latest possible date for the 42nd election is October 19, 2015. If you feel that you have references that advance a different point of view, then I invite you not to delete the article, but to improve it by explaining, with references, the alternate point of view.Dash77 (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

117Avenue : please do not delete the link to this article from Canadian federal election, 2011 again until the discussion for deleting the article, which you yourself have set in motion here, has run its proper course. This article, while it may or may not qualify for deletion, is clearly not a candidate for speedy deletion, and so good faith requires that the links remain active until the process is completed. Thank you.Dash77 (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete, silly, a factoid that can be squeezed in somewhere else, and is largely irrelevant since Canadian elections always come up well before the due date, at least during my lifetime. The fixed election date is largely meaningless, as the wiki entry itself makes clear. Hairhorn (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Canadian elections usually come up sooner than legally required because the party in power usually tries to schedule the election at a time that is to their advantage, rather than sticking with the legally required latest date. Knowing the latest possible date is still important in understanding the strategy of the party in power. Only when the party in power is profoundly unpopular, and is having trouble finding a good time to call an election (eg the Mulroney/Campbell PC's in 1988-1993, when the limit was five years), will they come close to letting their mandate expire.Dash77 (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Wiki entry notes that the law changed the maximum time period for a given Parliament to sit. It reduced the time period from five years to four years (give or take a number of months). It did not in any way change any of the events that may cause an early election and it is not my claim that it does.Dash77 (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion of the matter (and it's not even clear to me that the act trumps the 5 year limit in the Constitution), there's not enough information here to justify a separate entry. Hairhorn (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the law didn't change the five year limit. The five year maximum is in the constitution, and can't be changed, without an amendment, requiring federal and provincial parliamentary approval. It's a matter of serious legal debate whether the four year rule has any legal weight whatsoever. And, the four year rule can be changed anytime by simple majority in parliament. No election in all of Canadian history has ever occurred on a fixed date known prior to preceding election. --Rob (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, if it is truly a matter of "serious legal debate", then there should be a Knowledge article documenting that debate that you, I, or others can edit. No one has pointed me to such an article yet. The only pointer that has been posted is the wiki entry itself, which matches my own view on the matter--that the law establishes a latest possible date, but not an earliest possible date, for the election. If there is a "serious legal debate" on the matter, then I am quite happy to delete this article and move this kind of discussion to an appropriate article--but someone should suggest an existing or new article for such a discussion. A "serious legal debate" as to the timing of elections in a democracy certainly seems noteworthy enough for a Knowledge article, even if not THIS article.Dash77 (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The onus is always on those wishing to include a claim. You're the one who inserted the October 19, 2015 date, so it's up to you to verify it. Never, in all of Canadian history, has an election occurred on a date known prior to the preceding election. So, it is quite the novel theory to say that an election is already scheduled for October 19, 2015. I'm not trying to insert my version/understanding of the law. I'm saying because we can't verify anything concrete about this, we should scrap the whole thing. It's very dangerous when Wikipedians try to play lawyers, and interpret the law. That's why we need third party reliable sources to interpret the law for us. --Rob (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

We may need to agree to disagree on this. The law is very explicit and I have documented it. I'm not sure what more you want me to do. If we want to look to precedent on Knowledge, the analogous date of Oct 15, 2012 was used on the 41st federal election page from shortly after the creation of that page in 2008 until the GG dropped the writ on that election. No one ever documented that date or challenged it in all that time. I was asked to provide a reference and I did so. I cited the law itself. If someone wants to claim that a law is not valid, I think the onus is on them to provide some documentation. Even if we delete the article and recreate it in a few weeks' time, this issue about verifying the date presumably will come up again. So we might as well resolve it now. If you don't like the date of October 19, 2015, what date do you propose we use, and what are your reasons for saying so?Dash77 (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact we made a mistake before, is no reason to make another one. The original version of the 41st election was actually more accurate, since it correctly stated the five year limit, which is the only constitutional limit. If I had any suggestions for fixing this article, I'd have tried to fix it already. This article is not fixable. Even if the current law is constitutionally valid, it's still subject to change by a simple majority in parliament. That's something the article doesn't mention at all, which is shameful. I'd love to fix that, but my problem is there are *no* third party sources covering this topic. Rob (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not credible to simultaneously claim there is a "serious legal debate" yet there are "no third party sources". If a "serious legal debate" exists, then there will be conflicting opinions from established legal scholars, quoted in reliable third party sources. I will make an effort in the next day or two to locate such sources, although I still feel that the onus to do so is more on those who would challenge my documented claim as to the date. Again, the date issue is going to need to be resolved, deletion or not, because this article will eventually be re-created. Mentioning only the five year constitutional limit is insufficient in my view. If a law is on the books that law should be mentioned. If the law is controversial then evidence of both (all) sides of the controversy should be cited.Dash77 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Also it is not solely a matter of not repeating a past mistake, since Fixed election dates in Canada supports my take on this matter, and you haven't challenged that article. It could be argued that it is actually more important to challenge that one, because this one may be deleted anyways in the short term (even if we can agree on the date some people feel that is not enough info to justify an article), whereas Fixed election dates in Canada is an established article that is not likely to go away, and that people might draw on when they re-create this article.Dash77 (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Directly reading the law yourself, and interpreting it personally, is risky, and prone to error. It's the essence of original research. If I wanted to put my interpretation of the law in the article, then I would need to provide the 3rd party sources, but I don't. I want the article deleted. You've can cite a source for the *text* of the law, but not for your *interpretation* of it. Even if we assume the constitutionality of a compulsory four year term. You still have the fact that it's a simple piece of non-constitutional legislation, that the new parliament can amend or scrap (very possible if the Tories lose). You still have the fact there's never once been an election on a date known prior to the preceding election. If October 19, 2015 is truly a deadline, and if there is an election on that date, and this article's prediction comes true, then that will be the first time in all of Canada's history such a prediction could be made so far in advance. And, Knowledge will have the "honour" of being the *only* major publication anywhere in the world to predict the date so early. I've Googled the date combined with key terms, and can't find any other major publication making the same prediction. Why are we the first to use this date? Why? Why? Why?--Rob (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

When you say "there's never once been an election on a date known prior to the preceding election", do you mean just Canadian federal elections? Because it happened in BC in 2009, and is likely to happen another two times in Canada later this year. 117Avenue (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you state "I want the article deleted". Although you are not alone in favoring the deletion of this article, most others who share your view do seem to support the re-creation of this article after the current election (May 2, 2011) is over. You *do* seem to be pretty much alone in making a big issue of the October 19, 2015 date (most others who favor deletion seem to agree with my calculation of the date but feel it is insufficient to warrant a separate article). You don't seem to realize that the date issue isn't going to go away after May 2, 2011. How do you propose dealing with this issue? You did imply in an earlier message that it would be more accurate to use the five year constitutional limit, giving a date in 2016. Googling 2016 in connection with a Canadian election (I just tried) won't produce any more results that you obtained with October 19, 2015. How do you propose to resolve this issue? With all due respect, I am growing tired of debate and want some constructive suggestions from you if you don't like my approach.Dash77 (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that the issue will go away in the week following May 2, as third party sources will probably appear then. 117Avenue (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There are already plenty of third party sources that document the "third Monday in October" timing in Canadian elections. All I've added to that is a routine calculation which is permitted under WP:OR. I doubt that the date of October 19, 2015 will be explicitly mentioned in the press, or anywhere else except Knowledge, until we get much closer to the date.Dash77 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If all we do here is delay creation, then that's good. It's always the case with major elections, there's a tendency to make them too early. If nobody objected to this one, somebody would try and make a 43rd election. There's always a push to make one more election article than what's consensus. After this upcoming election (41st), I'm confident that there'll be some 3rd party coverage of the next election (42nd). It's pretty standard, that right after one election, pundits ponder the next one, especially if there's a minority. So, we can look over the sources and see what the article should say. Here's a key thing to remember: no matter what we do with this article now, there will ultimately be an entirely new article, based on actual sources. Nothing of this current junk article will ultimately survive. All time and effort put into this article has been a total and utter waste, just as previous ones have been. There will ultimately be an article that's based on actual sources, not original research. We're just debating whether we should show your original research in the mean time. --Rob (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"Nothing of this current junk article will ultimately survive." The debate about the date is what is going to survive this effort. Everything else, I would agree, is extraneous junk. And--as I've been trying to explain--there is nothing magical about May 2, 2011 that is going to change the shape of that debate. The question is ultimately going to have to be resolved: how does one deal with documenting, in Knowledge, the date of an event which is potentially covered by law, but where the law is untested?Dash77 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

3rd party sources are the magic. They change everything. If you had them for the current content, I would support keeping this, and if the "October 19, 2015" had 3rd party sources, I would happily support it's usage. The current article has *no* 3rd party sourced statements about the 42nd election. None. Why? Because, Knowledge is the only publisher who thinks its important enough to write about. Now, that will change. As soon as that happens, the *only* thing that will be in this article, will be what those sources say. If sources mention "October 19, 2015", it will be there (I'd even accept a primary source, if it *directly* mentioned the date). If not, it will go. It's really simple. No synthesis. You have totally misunderstand my position. My problem isn't the lack of legal test, it's lack of proper sources. I'm still waiting for you to explain why *no* sources (not even government ones) mention "October 19, 2015". I've searched hard for a source for the date of the post-2011 election. All I can find is this one, which says the "First fixed-date election to be held in 2012." Note, I will be fine with "October 19, 2015" once the proper source is provided. As a Wikipedian, I have to accept content, regardless of what I think of it, provided it's supported by proper sources. --Rob (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding 3rd party sources for the date, I just found one (The Globe and Mail) and have updated the article appropriately.Dash77 (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The article clearly says "So we do not have fixed election dates." It makes clear that we can not. It sarcastically says the next one is set for October 19, 2015, but it then throws in a "not", just in case your sarcasm detector isn't working (obviously yours is not). The entire thrust of the G&M article is exactly oppostive to the point-of-view you've been pushing in this article. Yet, you won't change the Knowledge article to fit the source, but instead wish to go the other way, by dishonestly representing what the source said. A single sentence in an opinion piece saying something is not going to happen, does not justify the creation of an article suggesting it will happen. This just shows the problem of people creating articles to early. When they finally find sources for what they're saying, they simply insert them into the old content, without trying to update it to reflect the sources. You get much better content, if you write it after finding the sources. --Rob (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to advance a point of view here. I'm trying to establish the date of the 42nd election so that we know how long the Parliament elected in the 41st election will sit. I do not care if that is done with a new article or with a brief mention on the 41st election page. The page for the 2011 Ontario election includes the following very clear, specific, verbiage: "Under amendments passed by the Legislature in 2004, Ontario elections are now held on fixed dates: the first Thursday of October every four years." Verbiage such as this, on the 41st federal election page, would be quite sufficient and would obviate any need to create the 42nd federal election page for the moment. Not sure why this is so straightforward in the Ontario case and so controversial in the federal case. The legal, constitutional, and political backdrop is the same at the provincial and federal level. The McGuinty government could pass legislation in Ontario changing the date at any time--but nobody is splitting hairs over there.Dash77 (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"a factoid that can be squeezed in somewhere else, and is largely irrelevant since Canadian elections always come up well before the due date, at least during my lifetime" I do not see it as an irrelevant factoid but, in fact, for me it is quite crucial in determining how to vote. My impression--and perhaps I am slightly older than you--is that a five year mandate is too long for a majority government, and such governments seem to stumble badly as they near the end of their mandate (eg Trudeau/Turner in early 1980-fall 1984; Mulroney/Campbell in 1988-1993). If I felt that the mandate was five years, I would be inclined to vote strategically to attempt to deny any party, even my own, a majority. If I felt that the mandate was only four (or so) years, I'd be more comfortable with a majority. I would never buy a car if I wasn't told whether the auto loan was a four or a five year loan. An similar uncertainty when I vote makes me equally uncomfortable, so I cannot agree that this "factoid" is irrelevant.Dash77 (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I'd love to say WP:TOOSOON if it said stuff about future events like WP:CRYSTAL. Might as well make a 43rd, 44th, or 45th federal election article with the same speculation about dates. Nothing of relevance to be said that cannot be covered by what is already known about the Canadian electoral process.--70.80.234.196(talk) 19:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As this discussion evolves, it is becoming apparent to me that the real issue is not so much whether this article gets deleted in the short term, but documenting "what is already known about the Canadian electoral process". Originally I created this article simply to memorialize what I thought was a non-controversial statement about a date--and the issue was whether that, in and of itself, justified the creation of an article. It is becoming apparent that there is more controversy surrounding the date itself than I realized. The reason for creating the article was simply to frame the time period to be covered by the Parliament elected in the 41st election--an election that is now actively in progress. Since the 42nd election is still in the future there is no need for even a stub article for the 43rd, 44th, etc elections. If the date itself is controversial, then perhaps it is appropriate to delete this one and modify Fixed election dates in Canada. However, I would like to see those who have criticized the validity of the fixed date contribute constructively to such work, and not merely criticize the efforts of others.Dash77 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete, After we learn the results of the 2011 federal election then maybe this article should be created. Aaaccc (talk), 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete, I agree I mean come on Wikipedians we have yet to learn the results of the 2011 election not to mention the 2015. Please work with me. Jessy 00:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete for now. This kind of thing isn't even useful as a placeholder — until we can actually say something verifiable and sourceable about it, we don't need an article about it. We don't yet know whether #41 will produce a majority government (the basic precondition for the 2015 date to actually mean squat) or a minority (which will virtually guarantee an earlier date). We don't yet know who will belong in the "Prime Minister before election" field. We don't yet know how many seats any party will or won't have; we can't yet assert even one potential election issue. Put simply, I don't understand why this, which was started literally within minutes of last Friday's confidence vote, is a top priority that needed to get rushed into place the moment #41 was in motion — between the eternal problems of monitoring for partisan spin and unelected candidates posting their campaign brochures without regard to our inclusion rules, let's concentrate on getting our coverage of this election done right before we start worrying about our article on the next one, 'k? Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep (criterion 1). Malia Ann Obama to stay redirect per consensus on Talk:Family of Barack Obama. Stickee (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (3rd nomination)

Someone just blanked out an article. I don't know all the legalese of how to do a deletion so forgive me and don't try to make excuses.

Bottom line: there was a good article on Malia Ann Obama. I saw on the talk page that it was a keep as was Patrick Kennedy. However, the person that doesn't want the Obama article blanked it out so I am doing them a favor by starting the legal process to decide.

Both Kennedy and Obama are minors and children of a president. Kennedy is more obscure since he died after birth. Obama has many news articles about her, some focusing on her and not Barack Obama. Whatever we do, we should be consistent.

NOTE: THE SECOND DELETION DEBATE FOR THIS ARTICLE RESULTED IN A NON_ADMIN SPEEDY KEEP. Should this be done again? I don't know.

Kewlarticle (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there some policy reason for deleting this article? Monty ₈₄₅ 03:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it is vandalism. Either that or someone is a religious disciple of Barack Obama. He asked the press not to cover her (but does mention her and allows photos and even let her give an interview once). The real reason is that he wants to control the press on his terms, like any parent would. He doesn't want her hounded except for when he agrees. One person in Knowledge decided to be the enforcer for Barack Obama. The only other explanation is that the person who blanked the article is a vandal. Kewlarticle (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

possible delete or keep, leaning towards keep undecided but leaning toward keep since the both people are well covered by the press, are more famous than semi-famous actors (who are covered in Knowledge). I think the term is notable. However, some may want a press blackout on presidential children (like in Spain) so we might want to follow Spanish customs. Kewlarticle (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm either really confused, or this was a completely improper AFD. It looks like the nom is objecting to the redirection of Malia Ann Obama to Family of Barack Obama, but instead of discussing it on a talk page somewhere, immediately started this AFD with a completely unrelated article just because it was about another child of a U.S. president. The speedy keep the nom refers to was closed as such exactly because it was just a mishmash of presidential children and pet articles thrown together. I think this should be speedy closed as well, and everything should proceed through normal editing and discussion. Seriously, never start an AFD under these circumstances. postdlf (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, this is the right way. The person blanked an article, in effect, deleting it. So rather than fighting back and forth, this is the right way. Postdlf, this groups 2 similar articles so we can decide correctly and fairly. We can't be deleting articles on girls and not on boys, that would be discrimination. If you say that things should have been discussed on the talk page then you should educate Tvoz, who just blanked it. By the way, where is the talk page? Is that the discussion page? Kewlarticle (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not the right way. Obviously you would leave a note on the talk page of the editor with whom you disagreed, even if it were just to point him to a discussion you started either on the redirect talk page or the target article talk page. Re: "2 similar articles," see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; that two articles are in the same general subject matter does not guarantee them the same treatment. This AFD is nothing but disruption to prove a point, and as I see you started this AFD with your eighth edit, that raises an eyebrow. postdlf (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The eyebrow is just being nasty. I found the article so I began writing it. I just followed the discussion tab which had the 2nd nomination so I copied the same thing. Besides, there is not a toll free number to ask so I did the best I could and asked that people not be too fault finding. Please don't be fault finding. Kewlarticle (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy close The status quo is a redirect, so the page should remain a redirect while discussion takes place. Discussion about creating a separate article should take place at Talk:Family of Barack Obama instead of at an AfD. Cunard (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the status quo is an article. You are destroying several people's hard work by blanking it. Discussion, maybe, but discuss it while the article is for everyone to see. Otherwise, people would be discussing not knowing what the article is about. It is like discussing an article about Leon Rappoport. If you blank the Leon article, nobody can discuss it rationally. If they see the Leon article, they can decide. The same is with Malia and Patrick. Kewlarticle (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy close, Nos. 1 & 2. No argument for deletion has been presented, and the AFD was started only to resolve an ordinary editing dispute before even a single attempt at discussion had been made with the opposing editor. postdlf (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Speedy close per Cunard and postdlf. There is no bona fide basis stated here for another AfD on Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, and the proper venue for discussion of Malia's redirect is elsewhere. It is inappropriate to group these two articles together for a simple reason: Malia's article is a redirect due to specific concerns about articles about minors under Knowledge policy relating to biographies of living persons. Sadly, that policy does not apply to poor Baby Patrick.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the redirect is vandalism, blanking out the article. There is a long article about Malia that someone keeps blanking so they can say it's a redirect. Kewlarticle (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment, speedy close means speedy keep Don't be foolish. The status at the time of the AFD was there was an article for both people. So speedy keep means they both stay, which some don't want. Speedy delete means two long articles get trashed. Kewlarticle (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Kewlarticle has started an WP:ANI thread at Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Someone keeps removing a "deletion discussion" box and blanking out the article. postdlf (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that the proper thing for people to do is to vote "merge and redirect" instead of blanking the page and redirecting it. After all, the article has been around for a few weeks. If the proper thing to do is to not have an ANI thread, then they can close it and redirect it here. The improper thing to do would be to shut off discussion by speedily keeping it here and ending the ANI.

merge and redirect, anyone? I vote "keep" I have thought it over and the hard work of others should not be deleted. Let's keep both articles. Both people are well covered by the press. Kewlarticle (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Consensus appears to be in favor of keeping the article and adding sources. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant 14:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

New Crobuzon

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

Declined prod in good faith. But lacking significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails the general notability guideline and verifiability policy on reliable sources. There's one quote from the creator in here that barely mentions this fictional location, which is far from enough to meet WP:NOT#PLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Numerous third-party references exist on Google Books which discuss this fictional locale. Southend sofa (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep – there are 71 hits in the 'news' sources, 1240 in the 'books' sources and 30-odd in the 'google scholar' sources; I have never seen an afd accompanied by so many potential sources. And a place does meet WP:NOT#PLOT, as a place makes a very inactive plot. Certainly the article could do with some more sources and it might well need trimming. Occuli (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just a correction. It doesn't meet WP:NOT#PLOT. "Inactive plot" doesn't somehow make this better. The policy calls for "discussing the reception and significance of notable works". There needs to be some real world significance for this plot element to warrant encyclopedic coverage and meet Knowledge policy. From what sources I can find, none of it explains the significance of this location. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep New Crobuzon is the main location in Miéville's Bas-Lag novels - and while in principle the necessary information in this article could be folded back into Bas-Lag, doing so would almost certainly unbalance that article. While this article is currently written too much in a glossary style to make the fact clear, New Crobuzon's politics, geography and social structures are essential background structure of Perdido Street Station in particular - and this has been recognised and extensively discussed in the secondary literature. I have added several citations from the couple of sources (out of the 1300-odd referred to by Occuli) that I have been able to access this evening - further work from those with more complete access than I have should be able to add far more. PWilkinson (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This AfD is redundant. A BLPPROD still applies, and if not sourced reliably this article will be deleted in just under two days. If by some miracle a reliable source is found, please reopen this. BLPPROD is designed to avoid unnecessary debates like this one. Fences&Windows 23:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Mikail Lil Pele Prince

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

This article I originally brought to a BLP Prod. The author appears to have attempted to remove that template with out adding any biographical sources. This article fails on multiple levels none of the least WP:BLPPROD. But also the only other mention that I can find under a couple of different searches is a youtube video. As such this article fail WP:GNG. And it also makes comment to a soccer team, not sure what level they play at but most likely also fails WP:NFOOTY. Enfcer (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. The subject is only eight years old and the only claim to fame is being ranked the best player in the country by his father. The Unionville Strikers are simply a local youth team of no notability. May possibly be a BLP violation due to age, but I'm not sure. Ravendrop 03:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL (as the CSL is not fully-professional), as well as WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Has not played in a fully pro league and has no significant coverage in reliable independent sources, failing WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life 01:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Audibles

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

No reliable secondary sources. A google search doesn't reveal any reliable secondary sources considering their suposibly producing for major artists. STATic message me! 19:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —STATic message me! 19:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete, possible hoax or exaggeration. For example, the article claims they're best known for a "hit single" called "Girl I Got You". We have an article for the album on which that song appears (We Are Young Money), which indicates that song wasn't released as a single. Hmm. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk 01:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

DELETE Unreferenced puffery that doesn't appear to get over the WP:ARTIST level. Hasteur (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Camp Farwell

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

Appears to fail WP:CORP. Could turn up no reliable sources for Camp Farwell to establish notability, doing some deep Web searching as well as searching on Highbeam Research. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Darned pay walls. There's a New York Times obituary for "Juma H. Farwell" (probably a database typo for Julia?), dated November 23, 1925, that (based on some of the excerpted results I got in different searches) might verify this camp's claim to be the oldest girls' camp in the U.S. If that claim could be verified in a reliable source it would go a long way to establishing notability. "Camp Farwell" certainly gets a lot of hits at Google Books, going way back, but many seem to be old advertisements.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Add comment: I located an on-line copy of a 2008 article in Vermont Life magazine, published by the State of Vermont, and, I suppose, at least debatably a reliable source. This article verifies that the camp was founded in 1906 but uses more careful language for the "oldest" claim: "Camp Farwell . . . calls itself the oldest continually operating girls summer camp in the country." .--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

'Undelete it doesnt have to be written up everywhere to be oldest camp but being the oldest camp should make it notable. can't records just prove this whether or not its gotten a lot of press? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.173.10 (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
KEEP but tag for citations, revisit on another day. If it is the "longest running all girls camp in the United States", then that alone may satisfy notability. Being that it is a "place" and not just a "company" lets it slide long enough to establish notability (if possible) in my eyes. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk 01:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep. I tried again, and the Julia Farwell obit in the NYT, mentioned above, opened for me this time in pdf form. It's only four sentences. The headline is "Julia H. Farwell Dies: Educator Was a Founder of Summer Camps for Girls", and it says, in relevant part: "Farwell is regarded as one of the founders of the Summer camp movement for girls, as Camp Farwell, which she established at Wells River in 1905, is said to have been the first of its kind." While this is not exactly rock solid, it does substantiate that this camp has been regarded as a landmark for a long, long time, and on that basis I'm persuaded we ought to let this article remain.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Action Masters. Redirecting per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Treadshot

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

Treadshot has poor sources to support this questionable article. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

'Comment

'how 'bout just improving the sources then!! 173.161.254.162 (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep or Redirect to Action Masters, an article about the main character Treadshot's group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewignash (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk 01:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge into a Transformers list of some sort, though I'm not sure which list. The article shows no indication of notability. Obviously, it can stay if someone can provide reliable non-primary sources. Harry Blue5 (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That article would probably be Action Masters. Mathewignash (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. The only substantive authors have requested deletion of the pages. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wilpower volcano chain

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

Verifiability, no original research: The seven Knowledge pages devoted exclusively to the “Wilpower Volcano Chain” and the alleged volcano “Terry” should be deleted, and all references to these alleged volcanoes in other pages should be removed from Knowledge due to lack of external references about the existence of these volcanoes, lack of geological evidence that these features are volcanoes, geological evidence that these features are unlikely to be volcanoes, and disregard of geographic naming conventions. Bc1234 (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This nomination also includes the following related pages:

Bc1234 (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete all as unverified OR. Whether or not this is a hoax, it fails for lack of an independently verified source showing that the conclusions have been subject to the appropriate academic scrutiny. AJHingston (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Delete, probably speedy as obvious hoax. The authorless Amazon.com book looks like a hoax insertion itself. Nothing about the Geography of Manitoba suggests a volcano chain there, and most of Manitoba is in the Archean Canadian Shield, which makes claims of Holocene volcanism seem unlikely. My strong suspicion is that there's a family named Wilpower and that these pages are a joke at there expense, which would suggest another ground for speedy deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Being in the Canadian Shield does not mean all rocks in the Canadian Shield were formed during the Archean. There was volcanic activity in the Canadian Shield during the Triassic (Churchill kimberlite field), Jurassic (Lake Timiskaming kimberlite field, Kirkland Lake kimberlite field, Churchill kimberlite field) and even the Cretaceous and Eocene (Lac de Gras kimberlite field). Further volcanism in the Canadian Shield is possible, though likely by millions of years. Volcanoguy 18:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete as the creator of these articles. I was not sure if this "Wilpower volcano chain" was true and the webpages that were used as sources seem to have been deleted. According to a student of the Geological Survey of Canada, there is no "Wilpower volcano chain" in Manitoba. Volcanoguy 18:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

oops how embarrassed am I? I added the authorless book ref that Smerdis refers to before I realised what it was. It was not a hoax - just inclusionist enthusiam on my part - sorry ppl. Mark

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Chess Illusion

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

Delete The article is not notable. The author of the article says that he made it up recently and seems to be selling it, so it is a bit of a commercial advertisement (and WP:COI). The article cites a 1994 book (added: reference now removed), but it is not in that book, nor its later edition. In the external links there is a blog with a posting by someone with the same user name as the author of the article, and he says that he is Carlos in the video. I PRODed the article, but the tag was removed without explanation. Bubba73 01:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

sorry i made to Many mistakes i wish i was a better programmer i accidentally made redirect or some deletion

i have removed any links too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos853333 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The book source should not have been added if this particular variant is not in the book, and without it there are no reliable sources. I agree with all the arguments in Bubba73's nomination. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Clear violation of WP:COI, and no valid refs for notability. (Interesting concept & attractive gameboard tho! - good luck Carlos in promoting your game.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete obviously not notable/COI but i do agree that it sounds cool, think the knight movement might drive people insane though. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

*And* the Bishop's movement! :) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete - completely non-notable. ukexpat (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Cool, but I found no evidence of independent coverage.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete no books or news sources at all. John Vandenberg 08:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete per all others. SyG (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete Not notable enough. --MrsHudson (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Aaron Dobrinsky

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

Does not pass WP:N Seems to have been created along with an article about Kosher.com and Jamie Geller as part of a promotional run. I know that this alone does not force the AfD but I don't see significant coverage as per WP:anybio. Joe407 (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable. Gets a few hits at for his role in previous companies, but most are passing mentions and not in major or mainsteam publications. --MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk 01:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:BIO. looks suspiciously WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of Sydney Swans players. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Taylor Gilchrist

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

Delisted by his club after having failed to play a senior AFL match in his career, so doesn't meet the Australian rules football criteria of the sports notability guideline. Also I don't think he has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, so doesn't pass the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Notability isn't established here. Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk 01:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to List of Sydney Swans players, but make a new #Drafted but never played section, as per other drafted, but never played players on other teams, such as List_of_Geelong_Football_Club_players#Delisted_players_who_did_not_play_a_senior_game_for_Geelong or List_of_Fremantle_Football_Club_players#Delisted_players_who_did_not_play_a_senior_game_for_Fremantle. The-Pope (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Redirect The Pope's call is a good one for this footy player with no individual notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Spate's Music News

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

No significant secondary source coverage. Nothing but a few unsubstantiated claims. Jay _{Σεβαστός} 11:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk 01:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

DELETE Unreferenced and speculative about it's claim to notability. No objection to re-creating this if/when it does receive real notoriety. Hasteur (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Summits

The result was Closed because article has been speedy deleted under A9. Peridon (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Co-nomination as a recording of a non-notable band. I have sent the band - Circle The Sky (Band) - to AfD also. Pol430 talk to me 13:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow 18:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete Still no references for notability at the band's article or AFD, and nothing at all for the album, referenced or otherwise. Monty₈₄₅ 06:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk 01:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete per consensus and per possible BLP issues. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Plank Champion of the World

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

Not notable enough. Has no references to an external site whatsoever. MobileSnail 01:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. No sources have been provided, and if this is a real concept, it can be discussed under Plank (exercise) after sources are found. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete as a WP:BLP violation. Southend sofa (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I am totally bemused regarding what this article is supposed to be about. 'Plank' in the UK is slang for an idiot, which perhaps adds to the confusion! - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: "Plank" in the states is a conditioning exercise in which you get into push up position and remain there for a given amount of time, or in this case; as long as possible. MobileSnail 22:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ofei Sakyi

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

Fails WP:N jsfouche ☽☾Talk 17:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete Unverified. His major claim to fame is as "one of the creators of the DJ Hero franchise", and yet the extensive credits at the DJ Hero reference cited in the article do not mention him. There is a minor technical credit for an "Ofosu Sakyi" as one of the technical remixers (I can't believe I just spent 10 minutes reading the entire six pages of credits), but even if this is the same person, it does not amount to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk 00:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete Verifiability's a problem, as per MelanieN. --joe decker 00:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Selvin Lammie

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

appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL Mayumashu (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL (as the CSL is not fully-professional), as well as WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Has not played in a fully pro league and has no significant coverage in reliable independent sources, failing WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life 01:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. this type of shit doesn't merit the oxygen of publicity. per WP:SNOW Scott Mac 17:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Claire Khaw

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

Un-noteworthy Gareth53 (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment The subject seems to have gone out of her way to attract attention, and has succeeded in making herself notable. I am not voting keep because as a policy matter I don't think we should be eager to provide additional notability for notability seekers, but I think the article passes WP:BIO and WP:BLP, an will even if some of the sources that are arguable on reliability grounds are removed. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete: if we discount the references to blogs, which can't be counted as reliable sources, then we have one very short mention in the Guardian of something she said on facebook in the election campaign, and coverage in various newspapers of her Gaddafi facebook group. That coverage is mainly about the facebook group rather than about Khaw herself, and is only one event, so under WP:BLP1E doesn't on its own make her notable enough for an entry. Hence I suggest delete. If the article is kept, we should at least remove the material that's not referenced to reliable sources. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete:I stubbed the article, eliminating all matter sourced to blogs and other unreliable sources, and it is now clearly an occurrence of WP:BLP1E. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete:One event racists, bigots, and such begone. But allow them come back when they prove to be serial idiots. John lilburne (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete - speedier the better. She is not really a notable anything. Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Carrie Cuinn

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

Non-notable author lacking GHits and GNews of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete nothing in gnews. article lacks reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete, very little third party coverage in WP:RS, with nothing substantive to meet WP:GNG. The company she founded, Dagan Books, was also nominated for AfD as it is of dubious notability, and much of the claim of notability for this individual appears to be centered around her work there. Most of the references provided are actually primary sources, such as content written by the author. --Kinu /_c 23:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedily deleted (G7) by Boing! said Zebedee. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Mighty Monkey Wrenches

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

Non-notable robotics team. None of the references appear to mention this specific team, just the competition and top-placing teams. VQuakr (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete 2 gnews hits hardly cuts it. LibStar (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Jason Watts

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER, or WP:ATHLETE. He hasn't worked in a notable promotion, and just being on a reality show isn't enough to establish notability. Nikki♥311 01:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 01:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:ATHLETE. LK (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Jenks24 (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Church of God, an International Community

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

Notability not asserted. Splinter group of United Church of God. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Although tiny, they seem to have an outsized media presence. Ben (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete as per nomination Prsaucer1958 (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:PERNOMINATOR. Unscintillating (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete - due to what seems to be a lack or reliable independent sources with significant coverage to confirm notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 13:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete. A gnews search comes up with 2 hits, neither of them significant. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Girlicious. Also, since this BLP is long and has only one reliable source, I'm nuking the history. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Natalie Mejia

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

Not a notable member outside Girlicious. Obviously there's gonna be "sufficient coverage", but there is no notable solo activity outside of the group established in the article as of now. See WP:BAND. Member was a part of another group, however that group was not notable which means notability is still not established. Fixer23 (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(Fixed nom by completing Step III (add nom to AfD log). Please close seven days after 14:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC))

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to her band, no individual notability shown. Nothing sourced worth merging. The minor news event is not worth mentioning. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Weak keep: Awful, poorly sourced article, but she seems notable enough and work independent of her band is discussed. -MrFizyx (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete or redirect - not notable on her own. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Girlicious. Lacks reliable sources so history goes too. No sourced info to merge Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nichole Cordova

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

(Fixed nom by completing Step III (add to log). Please close seven days after 14:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC))

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Girlicious. ℥ 15:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to her band, no individual notability shown. Nothing sourced worth merging. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Girlicious. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant 14:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Tiffanie Anderson

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

(Fixed nom by completing Step III (add nom to AfD log). Please close seven days after 14:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC))

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

While that may be true, she is just as notable as Cyia Batten or Carmit Bachar. She is currently working on a solo album which may make her worth mentioning as well. (talk) 22 March 2011

Not really, both of those articles have demonstrated notability outside of the group. Fixer23 (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to her band, no individual notability shown. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment In a separate discussion, the topic of notability based on celebrity itself can be used as a basis for keeping this article. I thus did a search for independent coverage for Anderson after her departure from Girlicious, since it is pretty clear cut that during her tenure there was no notable individual activity. Thus, perhaps activity afterwards could establish this as a standalone article itself for Anderson as an artist. No such luck, coverage is negligible. Fixer23 (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Girlicious. Also deleting history due to lack of reliable sources per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Chrystina Sayers

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

Not a notable member outside Girlicious. Obviously there's gonna be "sufficient coverage", but there is no notable solo activity outside of the group established in the article as of now. See WP:BAND. Unless anyone considers being one of many dancer featured in a unnotable workout dvd notable activity. Fixer23 (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(Fixed nom by completing Step III (add nom to AfD log). Please close seven days after 15:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC))

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to Girlicious, my observations on available sourcing match the nom's. --joe decker 00:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The result was merge to Baker & Daniels. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

B&D Consulting

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

no indication of how this company is notable or how it might meet WP:CORP. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Google news is showing some press releases and hits on quotes from employees in various articles but nothing about the company itself. RadioFan (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge to parent company article, Baker & Daniels. There are a lot of non-press release hits on Google News for this consulting subsidiary, actually, but only a few in-depth results. /ƒETCH COMMS / 19:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Baker & Daniels. Information in the article can easily fit into the parent. LK (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete . Marasmusine (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

UFC Undisputed 2011

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

Not announced as a future Video Game Muur (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete – The only thing I could find is that it's in the works, nothing else. That alone cannot build an article. –MuZemike 15:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete/Redirect - There are a couple sources(IGN in particular) that show that it exists, but it apparently won't be released until "Q1 2012". When more is announced other then it exists, then it might be notable, but not now. _Blake 16:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV. --Teancum (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)