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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon Family Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Minor indie company; no evidence or assertion of notability for over three years now. Orange Mike | Talk 23:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added the "Hang On" tag in order to complete edits and improvements to the page. Nebulex (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment Hang on tags aren't appropriate for AFD's, only for speedy deletions.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete production company with one movie to its credit, which appears to itself not have been notable (possibly direct to DVD). Could become notable in the future, but doesn't pass WP:CORP at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Serves as promotion piece for subject (edited partially by company). I originally proposed it for deletion but template was removed by Nebulex - explanation given was not satisfactory. Nothing really changed since proposal.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Nebulex appears to be a role account (keeps saying "we are new to this process" and the like), probably for Avalon. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that was my suspicion even before those comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one film only, and that one not particularly successful. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this one film production company. --Stormbay (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If circumstances change and this production company gets some decent coverage or note for more projects, the article might be considered for undeletion. But at the persent time it fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Efforts_for_psychiatric_reform. There seems to be a preponderance of opinion that this is not exntirely suited to a standalone article UNDUE & BLP1E/ONEEVENT are the cited argument but sufficient evidence of notability that this should be covered somewhere. Therefore the redirect appears to be the most policy based outcome. Since BLP1E has been cited and the keep votes haven't really shot that down and this doesn't appear to be a merge then I think losing the article history is also appropriate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involuntary committal of Victor Győry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article is a negative, mostly unsourced BLP, which has to be addressed somehow. However, that is not the primary reason I am nominating it for deletion.

I'm not convinced that this article meets the relative inclusion guidelines. My Prod concurrence was removed by Cyclopia. I have done a fair amount of digging, and these are the sources I found:

• Delaware County Daily Times – Chester, Pennsylvania – Wednesday, July 23, 1969 – Page 9 - ~3/4 column
• Delaware County Daily Times – Chester, Pennsylvania – Tuesday, January 06, 1970 – Page 13 - ~1 column
• Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph – Colorado Springs, Colorado – Friday, July 05, 1974 – Page 17 - 1/3 column
• Christian perspectives on psychology, edited by Richard Ruble - 2 paragraphs
• Mental Illness, by Marie L. Thompson - 1 paragraph
• Couple of 1-2 sentence mentions elsewhere.
• And of course, a Church of Scientology publication and Church of Scientology press releases, which I hardly think are reliable sources.

Together, I don't believe that is enough to have a full article on them. What do you all think? NW (Talk) 23:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This was fast, NW!. The article meets WP:GNG; even by applying strict BLP standards we have detailed, consistent coverage in two apparently reliable books and in several news. I agree with the nominator that CoS sources are not reliable, but other sources undoubtedly are. The claim that it is "mostly unsourced" is now false (I have now copied the sources that NW reports as well here); I am going to put them inline now. --Cyclopia^talk 23:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed to Redirect to Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Efforts_for_psychiatric_reform, per the merge performed by Jayen466. As long as the information about the case is preserved, merging in a larger article is a sound editorial decision. --Cyclopia^talk 13:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It really comes down to whether this unreferenced assertion "Because of this case, the United States and many other countries changed involuntary commitment laws" is sustainable. If it is, it is a clear keeper. If not, it is a Scientology related coatrack. I'd urge the keep voters to see if they can give that solid references, if they can, they'll have my support. Otherwise delete.--Scott Mac 23:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he's not notable GNG three single issue cites doesn't make a worthwhile biography, that is if there are even three worthwhile reliable cites. If he is a single issue then redirect him there and add a comment there. Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per BLP1E, this is not the sort of coverage that justifies a biography. If the person is or was a "poster child" for Scientology's anti-psychiatry campaign, as the article claims, then perhaps the affair should be mentioned in Scientology and psychiatry. At present there is no such mention in that article. There was a controversy around Gyory, in which the Citizens Commission on Human Rights and Thomas Szasz got involved: [1], [2], [3]. Neither Citizens Commission on Human Rights (an organization supported by Scientology) nor Thomas Szasz mention the case either. Leaning towards delete (or merge to one of the other articles mentioned), absent any solid evidence that the case changed law. --JN466 23:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the article to Involuntary commitment of Victor Győry, per WP:BLP1E. --Cyclopia^talk 23:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is helpful. Perhaps we should allow Cyclopia to do a bit more work on the article and then revisit. --JN466 23:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Efforts_for_psychiatric_reform. --JN466 12:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: To Jayen and Scott: Indeed, no RS strictly justify the Scientology claim, so I removed it; a book source details his release and makes no mention of the CoS. The article is now "Scientology-free", corresponding to sourcing. --Cyclopia^talk 23:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm still seeing absolutely no assertion of significance except "Because of this case, the United States and many other countries changed involuntary commitment laws" - which utterly lacks any substantiation.--Scott Mac 23:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG requires no "assertion of significance" (cfr. also WP:IDONTKNOWIT for a related read) but only "significant coverage". We have the latter. I agree that claim lacks substantiation (I'm still searching for sources about that), but it's entirely irrelevant to guidelines and policy. --Cyclopia^talk 00:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guidelines are only guidelines and don't have to be followed to unsupportable conclusions (indeed, they don't have to be followed at all), when we are dealing with an unfortunate case of a living person I (and I suspect others) require there to be some importance or significance before we argue for keeping it. If this case has really had an impact on legislation then it is obviously a keeper, without that it ought to be deleted. I sure no one is arguing on the basis of not having heard of it, so I can't see the point of your reference to WP:IDONTKNOWIT. --Scott Mac 00:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not an anarchy. Guidelines have to be followed, unless in peculiar cases where there are very strong and serious reasons for the contrary. GNG is one of the most respected and engrained guidelines, the basic reference point for deletion discussions. There is nothing that makes this article exceptional with respect to others so I don't see any proper reason to ignore WP:GNG. If you want to change it to include your "significance" criteria, you're welcome, but seek consensus on the proper venues (e.g. RfC). For now, it is clear that your opinion, while respectable, is not supported by guidelines or policies. --Cyclopia^talk 12:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cyclopia as much as you'd like that to be the case, you know that it is wrong. Guideliens do NOT have to be followed, never have. Guidelines do not proscribe, they merely describe. They describe what consensus tends to do in deletion discussions - and consensus is not static. Guidelines are not legislation - we change as discussions change and then people update the guidelines to reflect that. Personally, I don't read notability guidelines. I choose to consider each case on its merits. I know others find them helpful - and that's fine. However, they bind nothing and no one. That's the way Wikipedia has always worked. If you wish it to be different, then you need to change fundamental policy.--Scott Mac 12:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not to mention the fact that notability guidelines merely provide help with the bare minimum requirements for entries vis-a-vis notability. Editors like Cyclopia appear to treat these guidelines as rules governing which entries should always be kept, and that is simply absurd. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not wrong. WP:GUIDELINE (a procedural policy) says: Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Common sense and occasional exceptions, fine. Now, either you explain why you think this is a case worth an occasional exception, or you should accept it and follow it. And yes, in general AfD consensual practice is that if a subject meets GNG then the article is kept (again, with occasional exception, e.g. a notable subject may be best merged somewhere else for other reasons). It is you both that are misrepresenting WP. --Cyclopia^talk 13:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The statement that editors "should" attempt to follow guidelines is simply wrong. There has never been consensus for that. As for deletion discussions, unless the article violates actual policy, the decision to delete or retain rests with consensus. People may choose to be influenced by the notability guidelines when opining - personally, I don't. I take each case on its merits, discuss it, and attempt to shape a consensus. --Scott Mac 13:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The statement that editors "should" attempt to follow guidelines is simply wrong. There has never been consensus for that - It may be wrong in your personal imaginary world, but in the real world of WP it is policy. I know that humbleness is not your strength, but could you admit that perhaps you may be wrong, sometimes? --Cyclopia^talk 14:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Repeated supporting of low quality , low notability and uncited content is extremely detrimental to the project. Off2riorob (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cyclopia, you have also not dealt with my point at all. WP:GNG is not a mandate to keep any entry that qualifies, and nothing you have quoted disproves that assertion. Besides this fact, the applicable sub-guideline here is WP:VICTIM, and it complicates your claims quite a bit. The existence of sub-guidelines, like WP:PEOPLE, or WP:VICTIM, speaks exactly to Scott's point btw. Not every context, or every subject matter fits neatly into the WP:GNG scheme. We have sub-guidelines for that reason, and in the end we have case by case analysis as well. You can chose to deal with this reality or just repeat your self to absurdity. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh here is what WP:GNG says: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. - Yes, there is the famous presumption clause, but to appeal to this you need to bring further guidelines/policies that the article violates. I don't see any. I don't get why you cite WP:PEOPLE or WP:VICTIM, since the article is (now) about the case, and not about the person, and as such it is compliant with WP:BLP1E and falls out of the scope of WP:PEOPLE guidelines. --Cyclopia^talk 14:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Of course the entry is about a victim. The fact that you changed the title to represent the act of victimization, instead of just the victim, doesn't change the nature of the content. Despite the incessant wiki-lawyering and policy wonkery you are continually failing to address my other point. GNG does not say that every entry that is "presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" ought to be in the encyclopedia. It certainly does not say that every article that meets the general inclusion criteria, as opposed to more specific guidelines ought to always be kept. There are clearly cases, all the time, when GNG is met but relevant policies overrule inclusion in the encyclopedia. There are also clearly cases in which someone such as yourself argues that it is met but others disagree with inclusion and delete entries. Why does that happen? Because as Scott has tried telling you repeatedly GNG is not a policy but a guideline ... something to help us navigate the issues only. I'm done. Keep on wiki-lawyering for inclusion if you want. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • The entry is about a case: this is not wiki-lawyering, it is a fact. More specific guidelines extend GNG, do not substitute it. About Scott, well, he is convinced that policies are "wrong"; it may be that you two agree on that, but seek consensus to change WP:GUIDELINE and come back before saying "it's just a guideline": policy says we ought to follow guidelines apart from occasional cases requiring an exception. And, yes, if something satisfies the inclusion criteria and does not break other policies/guidelines, no reason to delete it exists. --Cyclopia^talk 15:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin. This debate has been brought to the attention of members of the "article rescue squadron" which is dedicated to saving articles. You may wish to take into account the ways in which this may impact on consensus in this debate.--Scott Mac 00:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it is dedicated to source and edit them in order to make them policy-compliant in deletion discussion. I very rarely tag stuff for rescue: this is a case where more eyes and hands helping with sourcing/editing could be essential. --Cyclopia^talk 00:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, we can agree to disagree on the effect of your template, and the closer can make their own assessment.--Scott Mac 00:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue I have seen that is worth considering is that a group of people that are dedicated to preserve articles and that is fine it they come and improve an article but if the template attracts keep comments from there and no article improvement then that is a clear consideration as regards closure. Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I a member of the Article Rescue Squadron, but I examine each article on the merits, and improve the article if I can. In this particular instance, I am unsure about notability of the article, and also whether the reader gains any insight into involuntary commitments. So, I would lean toward the deletion side, but I am really undecided. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What causes you to be unsure? There are multiple RS covering the subject. I also don't understand why "whether the reader gains any insight into involuntary commitments" is of any relevance: what is important is coverage of that case. --Cyclopia^talk 02:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- in my opinion the coverage is sufficient to meet our verifiability policy and our notability requirements. Reyk _YO! 04:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Contrary to the opinions expressed above there is absolutely not indication of significant coverage here. "Significant coverage" requires multiple sources discussing the subject in detail. Two psychology text books mention this event anecdotally and a handful of local newspapers reported on it. This is hardly an event of note to be reported on by an encyclopedia. The fact that it is a WP:BLP makes it absolutely clear that it should be deleted at once. On a sidenote the entry was in an atrocious state and tagged as such for years. Why aren't people "rescuing" bad entries before they make it to AfD? That would be a much more productive exercise. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Significant coverage" is explained by WP:GNG as: sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. - The sources absolutely do that, dedicating detailed paragraphs to the case.
2. This is hardly an event of note to be reported on by an encyclopedia: WP:UNENCYC is a known fallacy.
3. Article is no more a BLP, since it has been now renamed and refactored to cover the case and not the person, in compliance with WP:BLP1E. --Cyclopia^talk 14:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP applies to any article with biographical content in it. You're just wiki-lawyering now that you changed the title. I get it, you don't like BLP sensitivity, and I believe you've stated as much before, but at least people who try to protect BLP's are following policy mandates and aren't just trying to protect the sheer volume of the encyclopedia. Nothing of use can come from any future responses from me to you, so I bid you adieu.Griswaldo (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on sources. I had to remove one of the three sources used for the entry because it was not itself discussing Gyory or the event in question. The source, Mental Illness simply reprinted a blurb about Gyory from a Scientology publication while discussing a Scientology organization. Misusing references like this is not helpful to the process of figuring out if the event meets our threshold of notability or not. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note - the AFD link appears to now be broken from the article afer it was moved. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AfD notice's msg is fine, it is the ARS flag-waving template at the top with the redlink. I'm sure they can figure it out. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Classic WP:BLP1E, despite the lipstick-on-a-pig article rename. We have a story about one person who got a bit of press of one event. This is a person who would otherwise be completely unknown to the public save for this unfortunate circumstance of involuntary commitment, and he certainly has not sought publicity in the aftermath; no book tours, no visits to Oprah's couch. Exercise a bit of editorial discretion and snip this tawdry crap out of the project, please. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Article as such really doesn't assert any real notability. Oh, it's a shame and a travesty that it happened, and there should have been greater publicity over this and significant reforms should have been spurred by the case... but we work with what is, not with what should be. Delete. DS (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - if Mr Gyory's case had actually led to reforms comparable to those of which resulted from the incarceration of Ernesto Miranda, there would be much more coverage of him. There is not. Quod erat demonstrandum. DS (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However nothing of what you said has to do with our general notability guidelines, which only require coverage by multiple reliable sources. --Cyclopia^talk 22:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines are not proscriptive.--Scott Mac 22:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect - per nom and WP:BLP1E. --Ronz (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Or redirect to write-up by Jayen466 mentioned below. --Ronz (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added a write-up of the case at Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Efforts_for_psychiatric_reform. One of the sources, Ferguson, Larry (1974-07-05). "CCHR Using Publicity to Improve Mental Care". Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph., called it the CCHR's "first victory", so it is a notable case to mention within that article. It's probably better housed there than in a standalone article. --JN466 22:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally happy with the merge -sounds like a good compromise --Cyclopia^talk 23:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I was looking through the Google book results. Most of this comes from the Scientologist and their Citizens Commission on Human Rights. They published a pamphlet of this case, and state it was one of their organization's first major victories against psychiatry. I think a lot of the sources are from the Scientologist, not just the most obvious ones which have "Scientologist" in their title. Was this a notable enough case to change laws, or be mentioned in any books not related to this organization? Dream Focus 13:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Even Dream Focus isn't sure if this is a keeper. I propose we introduce a new speedy deletion criterion: "CSD G13: If Dream Focus doesn't submit a knee-jerk Keep !vote for the article, then it should be deleted immediately." SnottyWong ^chat 17:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd support a less provocative version of that criterion. "CSD G13: No conceivable argument for keeping, as evidenced by DreamFocus not supporting retention of the article." :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a news source and does not provide an article on every newsworthy event. In order to overcome this policy, the event would need to have wide demographic or geographic impact, be the precursor to or result of another notable event, and/or demonstrate sustained discussion sufficient to found a claim of historic importance. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Citizens Commission on Human Rights#Efforts for psychiatric reform. A mention on that page seems appropriate, and since he's mentioned there, a redirect would do no harm; but he's in no way notable enough to justify a separate article, especially as he may be still alive (raising BLP concerns). Robofish (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect both title as per Robofish. The case is already written up in the CCHR article and certainly fails WP:EVENT - it's remembered by nobody but the CCHR, a separate article would be pushing their POV far too far. Cyclopia, I don't understand why you think this is a suitable article, we don't decide on inclusion simply by robotically counting references. Fences&Windows 01:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about mere robotical counting: once we have multiple reliable sources that cover a subject, however, a strong case for notability exists, and I've seen no compelling reasons to merely delete the information. However you will notice that I changed my !vote to redirect per the merge on CCHR. --Cyclopia^talk 01:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails to meet any of the four WP:PORNBIO criteria, as she has not won a well-known award; has not received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years; has not made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre; and has not been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. NW (Talk) 22:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - She was nominated for an AVN Award for multiple years, 2006 and 2007. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Morbidthoughts. Multiple awards over different years, and notable to the genre, meet inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has just won a major award. Epbr123 (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Connors (pornographic actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails to meet any of the four WP:PORNBIO criteria, as she has not won a well-known award; has not received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years; has not made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre; and has not been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. NW (Talk) 22:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Prior AfD Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: One of the name porn actresses of the 70s, never mind PORNBIO; she meets C1 and C2 of WP:ENTERTAINER.  Ravenswing  16:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the aforementioned reasons + she's the mother of actress Thora Birch. -- fdewaele, 4 January 2011, 19:12 CET
• Keep Conners was the title character in both the Erotic Adventures of Candy and Candy Goes to Hollywood, as well as the nurse in Deep Throat, by some measures the most profitable film of all time. Should keep for her appearances on US national on The Gong Show. K8 fan (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The reasons given are exactly WHY this artist should be retained. Minutiae is a forte of Wikipedia and giving that up just because a person isn't significant enough, when the article IS informative, hurts all users, a little at a time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.205.167 (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While PORNBIO notability may be dubious, meets both WP:ENT and the GNG through her association with Chuck Barris and Thora Birch. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails to meet any of the four WP:PORNBIO criteria. Also fails to meet WP:CREATIVE. NW (Talk) 22:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. This page has been on my watchlist for some time. Most of it is sourced to IMDB and IAFD. Neither is a reliable source. What's here from other sources does not establish notability. Failure to meet WP:PORNBIO is icing on the cake. I hadn't thought of WP:CREATIVE, but re-reading that for the first time in a while, that citation is spot-on, as well. David in DC (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She has won a Hot d'Or in 1993. Her move to a Radio station was also covered extensively in the French press. Several of your nominations have missed easily found information like this. Please check more carefully so as not to waste other people's time. Francis Bond (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Beside the Hot d'Or, Cash has starred in mainstream films such as Rai (see WP:PORNBIO #4). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Easily passes the GNG after reviewing the Google News and Books hits. She was a host for a terrestrial radio station in France and her feature role in Rai passes the 4th criteria of PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Hixteilchen (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above 74.50.113.31 (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A two-line WP:BLP, unsourced for 3 and a half years...time to do something about it. Ms. Rast does appear to be a respected, working photographer--Google searches turn up plenty of pix of notable subjects...but none of the sources ever talk about her. Without sources dedicated to the subject, we can't meet any reasonable inclusion criteria for WP:BIO let alone WP:V. — Scientizzle 21:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Google search of individual finds nothing of significant value other than the occasional self promotion page and cybernetworking page. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I quote her website: <meta name="description" content="Daisy Rast is a fashion photographer in Los Angeles, CA whose time has come to emerge into the limelight. Her photography really captures the essence of her subjects with a strong emphasis on the clothing or acessories [sic]. Daisy has had her work appear in numerous magazines and has had an image on the cover of LabelHorde Magazine."> I infer that Ms Rast believes that although she should "emerge into the limelight" she hasn't done so yet. When she has books, exhibitions, etc, she can have an article here. -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. A clear shortage of information 74.50.113.31 (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unfortunately the "delete" !voters make the stronger arguments here. All the sources provided, including the new ones added during this discussion, are not the in depth coverage required by WP:GNG. If this changes then this article can be recreated/restored. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti4Hire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a recreation of a page originally created by a banned editor (thekohser) as part of a paid editing bid. The company is nonnotable as it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. I can't find any more coverage than the primary sources, press releases, and passing mentions used to source the article currently. Also I would argue WP:DENY should apply here due to this editor's past history with the site. ThemFromSpace 21:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Twinkle misfired on another user. Sources seem mostly unreliable or trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think WP:DENY is relevant, but I can't find any significant coverage of this company, as would be required to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was the user that recreated the page. Upon seeing the Google Cache version of the page, I thought there might be some notability to the subject and that it certainly shouldn't have been deleted under G11 (or G5, for that matter). I tried discussing it with the deleting admin, but he wasn't really interested in talking, so I just went ahead and recreated the page. I'm not going to vote in this AfD, I feel that, if this article is going to be deleted (or not), that it is proper for it to get a full discussion from the community. Silverseren^C 21:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is this the same version that was deleted, or did you write it yourself? SmartSE (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is close to the same version, yes, though I did reword some things and re-arrange some parts. That's why I made the comment on attribution on the talk page, which was mentioned to me afterwards (I hadn't known that you have to attribute to other editors if you use their work on Wikipedia). Silverseren^C 19:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - honestly, it's just not notable - Alison ^❤ 21:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to weak keep - the new references that have been recently added put it over the line, IMO - Alison ^❤ 12:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think we are better off having this than not. The current sources while not spectacular, make this acceptable I think anyway... And I really don't think that how the article was created should influence its outcome provding it doesn't contain POV... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources are quite a way below spectacular - they are pretty rubbish - 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all primary sources (no use for establishing notability) and 5-7 are trivial mentions in either local (6+7) or unreliable (5) sources. 8 does not mention the comany except as a credit and the text in the article is obviously trying to use the celeb's notability to demonstrate that it is notable. 9 could possibly provide some evidence of notability, but since we can't see it, this is difficult to say and it sounds like it might well be similar coverage as to in ref 8. SmartSE (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but nearly the entire content of the sources are devoted to the company's output. Birmingham Mail is an acceptable source as is the West Midlands Police.. It notable enough to be mentioned in multiple publications... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added sources (8, 9, and 10) from Birmingham Mail (two different features) and West Midlands Police about two newsworthy installations directed by the company. Even though these are only "local" coverage, that hasn't stopped Wikipedia before. This would seem to bring the article just over the notability line, and previous comments may wish to reconsider. Disclosure: I have not been paid to act here. And, I work one Saturday morning a month with troubled youth, some of whom have been arrested for illicit graffiti. - Juicy mailman stews (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those mentions discuss the company in any detail, they only reference it in passing mention as a part of different news stories. ThemFromSpace 16:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne032009 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — Anne032009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - Of course we are better off having this than not. Several independent print newspapers have focused on the company's community work, and one of its exhibits (the T-34) is itself a Wikipedia article. The only explanation for deleting a properly-sourced article about a verifiable company is simply spite over its author. We don't do that here at Wikipedia. Don't call me shorely (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, none of the sources discuss the company in any great detail, which is required by the notability guidelines in order to have an article. ThemFromSpace 01:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read what's found at your link to WP:GNG, it informs us: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. The entire contents of some of the referenced news articles here focus quite entirely on the community involvement and projects of the subject company. Therefore, it exceeds the codified standard of "more than a trivial mention", and your "none... in any great detail" is a misinterpretation of the rule. Sorry, but even the policy instructs us that this is a clear keep. Don't call me shorely (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Only two "reliable source" citations are provided at the article, and they mention the company only in passing (one a paragraph, one a bare mention). Nothing found at Google News. --MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This apparent autobiographical entry (created by Jcelada (talk · contribs)) has been unsourced since 2006. The claims of notability are modest, but further scrutiny suggests this individual does not meet WP:BIO. A search on PubMed only turns up one likely publication (2nd author) for this person (this one), so any WP:PROFESSOR claims seem tenuous. Google Books searches[4] don't turn up likely hits for this "author of several books" other than those that seem only to cite the aforementioned paper. Mental Health Coordinator of Mental Health Department of Los Angeles County doesn't meet a reasonable threshold of inherent notability and the paucity of useful sources doesn't suggest this article is salvageable. — Scientizzle 20:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing but a COI.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can only find one article in the Orange County Register about him, not enough to satisfy WP:GNG, and WP:PROF seems even farther out of reach. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per both previous comments.--Stormbay (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As I keep saying, if an someone starting an article on himself can't be bothered to add notability info, why should we bother searching around for it? EEng (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject has only played tier 4 soccer in North America, and is apparently going to play tier 4 soccer in Sweden. Not even close to the fully professional leagues in those regions. He has also not represented his nation as a member of their senior team. Fails wp:NSOCCER. No significant coverage from reliable sources. Google returns social media sites. GNews returns old, local stories about his collegiate career. Nothing meets wp:GNG. » scoops “5x5„ 19:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The player has played USL in North America, as well as attended the MLS Combine, trained and played with teams in Italy and Germany, and is currently under contract for Swedish Division 2 side Enkopings SK which is a fully sanctioned professional club in Europe. He has also played many games for the U20 and U23 Canadian National Teams. In college he was a Division I All-American and was ranked as one of the top goal scorers in the nation for 4 years. He has a tremendous list of accolades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futbolfanboy (talk • contribs) 19:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: He also has played for the Richmond Kickers where he won the USL Division 2 Championship last season. The Richmond Kickers play in a fully professional league as stated in the WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futbolfanboy (talk • contribs) 19:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid I can't find any wp:RS confirming that Mr. Revivo actually played for the Richmond Kickers. Can you help me out? The best I can do (after scouring the Richmond Times-Dispatch site) is a passing reference that says he was added to the roster (not that he ever appeared for them). Merely being on a roster isn't good enough. Everything else you've said falls under my previous comments with regards to our notability criteria. Junior national teams do not automatically confer notability. Being an All-American does not automatically confer notability. Going to training camps does not confer notability. » scoops “5x5„ 20:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While this athelete may be moving up in the soccer world, his professional accomplishments just aren't enough to warrant an article, yet. Angryapathy (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence he has played in a fully-professional league, therefore faling WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 17:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he played for Toronto Lynx but only after they joined the PDL, never actually played a game for Richmond Kickers as per the USL website's stats archive, and has not yet played any games for Enkopings as the 2011 Swedish season hasn't started yet. Fails WP:GNG and the relevant soccer-related notability requirements as youth caps alone do not convey notability, but we can easily re-create it if and when he plays professionally in Sweden. I should also mention the possibility that the creator of this article (Futbolfanboy) *is* Daniel Revivo, which could constitute a WP:COI --JonBroxton (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even thought it is not up on ESK's website, Daniel Revivo signed with the club halfway through the 2010 season. The club are behind the times with updating the website, but I have found some sources where there are match reports and pictures of him playing with the club.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Flokalsport.nu%2Fcomponent%2Fsearch%2Frevivo%2F%3Fordering%3D%26searchphrase%3Dall

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=22514920

http://esksupport.se/forum/gst_match.php?match=14

http://www.everysport.com/sport/fotboll/division-2-herr/norra-svealand/event/2010-07-31/enkoepings-sk-fk-stroemsbergs-if/12345441

http://www.unt.se/sport/nyforvarv-avgjorde-brderbyt-for-esk-1005671.aspx

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://www.unt.se/sport/nyforvarv-avgjorde-brderbyt-for-esk-1005671.aspx&ei=QjMmTbm9OcGB8gaFrOXrAQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CD8Q7gEwBjgK&prev=/search%3Fq%3Denkopings%2Bsk%2Brevivo%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Den%26prmd%3Divns

http://425740.webshop.eurovator.se/group.asp?group=2413

There are plenty more out there, they are just in swedish and scattered around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futbolfanboy (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Still fails WP:GNG, despite protests Spiderone 09:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It doesn't matter if he played with Enköping during the 2010 football season, since they are an amateur team, semi-professional at best. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL Tooga - BØRK! 20:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No notability outside the band. Redirect undone by a user with a longterm vendetta against me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Google brings up a fair number of hits that predate Smash Mouth.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Vendettas aside, I believe Mr. Urbano has generated enough coverage as an individual, seperate from any band affiliation, from third party – verifiable – creditable and independent sources, as shown here [5] to warrant a place here at Wikipedia. A rewrite warranted yes. Delete no. I have started adding sources and citing piece. Happy New Year. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep aside from SoV's comment the proper thing would be to discuss the redirect on the the article talk page with a pointer on the bands talk page. Deletion isn't an option here.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as he clearly meets musician biography criteria #6, as a member of two or more notable ensembles. Way more. Clearly notable. Cullen328 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiʻi Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Semi-professional league of questionable notability - teams all appear to be flagged for deletion as well. Google News search on the name brings back no results. Very little significant coverage found in in indepedent publications. Major contributor has an admitted conflict of interest. Contested PROD. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the following reasons come to mind for deletion of this article: aforementioned WP:COI; 2) Failure to meet notability standards (WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT); 3) Contains original research (WP:OR); 4) miscellaneous violations of WP:GROUP (group is too local for coverage in Wikipedia) and WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not your free web hosting server); 5) Failure to provide reliable independent sources WP:RS (semiprofootball.org hardly qualifies). Typically semi-pro teams are not considered notable and neither are the leagues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep There are two 3rd party sites listed on the page, it IS noteworthy, I don't understand how semi pro football is not noteworthy, and yes the information is reliable, try and prove how its not reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs)
  • Sources the "sources" on the page are 1) the league's website (which is not an independent third party source), 2) something called "LogoServer" which only shows the league's logo, and 3) semiprofootball.com, which appears to be nothing more than an enthusiast website primarily serving as a discussion board for people who play and enjoy the sport. These are not independent, reliable sources and discussion boards are especially not considered reliable for Wikipedia standards.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try and prove okay. Review WP:RS and you'll find "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight" -- the discussion boards and websites held out as sources have no editorial oversight, no way to contact the editor, do not cite sources themselves, and otherwise are extremely difficult to verify. Therefore, they don't qualify. Now if there are other sources to bolster the notability of the organization, then these might add a nice touch to the article but without independent, verifialbe, third-party relible sources the article has pretty much got to go. We're not saying the league doesn't exist, it's just that it's not noteworthy enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Google news comes up with nothing, no independent third party sources, fails WP:ORG. Secret ^account 22:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Keane Tells the Ritchie Valens Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable interview disc per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The item seems to be fairly common in online discussions about the life and times of Richie Valens, but it has not received enough coverage as a stand-alone item in itself for notability. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unclear that he satisfies WP:PROF. Google scholar has a number of articles being cited farily regularly (three in the 20-30 cite range) but nothing that impressive. The article as it currently stands does not make a good case for notability. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. GS gives h index of 11. Not enough for WP:Prof#C1. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Not notable enough. Aside that, the article looks ridiculous. The information on his wife is not only inappropriate but also absolutely useless. Who cares about whether his wife is a PhD student or not?! DrPhosphorus (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Film With No Name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Deprodded. Film does indeed have a Facebook page and an IMDB hit, as well as a number of online trailers and postings. But I can find zero WP:RS indicating notability. And of course, being "influenced" by notable works confers no notability whatsoever to this film project. Am I missing something? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing here to suggest notability. IMDB has a release date of July 2011 in London. Maybe it'll do the film festival circuit and get nominated/win awards then? No problem with it being recreated if/when any sources become available. Lugnuts (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NotJustYet. Let it get released and coverage and article might then be undeleted and expanded and sourced. But for now? Nope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A search for references found no independent WP:RS for this article, fails WP:N and WP:V, similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kin-Kon-Kan. Prod removed with "another ridiculous prod" [6] Article is about a binary-determination logic puzzle published by Nikoli JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could quite easily be redirected to Nurikabe though. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The similarity to Nurikabe is only in the logical process involved in solving and not something that would make a redirect to that specific puzzle make sense. DreamGuy (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination is part of a (certainly unconscious) cultural bias against significant Japanese topics. Searching for an English rendition of the word won't find any the Japanese sources. Per Wikipedia policies on cultural bias and notability we are supposed to give a global view to topics, not just what some English speaker with little familiarity with the topic can pull up with a basic Google search. DreamGuy (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced and non-notable. Re the comment above about this being a "significant Japanese topic", the fact that no Japanese Wikipedia article exists on the subject that would seem to suggest that it is not at all significant. --DAJF (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lessons From The Successful Investor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable e-book by non notable author Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no library holdings, no substantial reviews. Author might possibly be notable , so there may be a merge available.

• Delete. The book definitely fails WP:GNG, and I don't think the author is notable either. The sources are plentiful on the surface but not actually particularly substantial. --bonadea contributions talk 19:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Previous prod was for Copyvio, and declined as a mirror. A search for references found no WP:RS for the subject "Mosodeng is a very popular Tripuri food item made of chillies.", fails WP:V and WP:N JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails both verifiability and notability. Only WP mirrors can be found on the web. Shovon (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Keep and rename to Mosdeng. Anneyh, all three of the references provided by you actually use the spelling *Mosdeng*. Thanks for pointing out. Shovon (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep after renaming to Mosdeng. Looks like a typo with different names here Mosdeng serma and there Mosodeng but later the recipe is Wahan Mosdeng. Both sites don't look like mirrors to me. Actually I found a third site [7] that cites whan mosedng as typical dish. --Anneyh (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - looking at the sources Anneyh found, I believe it is worthy of inclusion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Painesville, Ohio train derailment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

In keeping with WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS, this derailment was, perhaps, important enough to stay up for a few days to see if it was going to have any ongoing notability, but there's no indication that it has. No one was killed, the lawsuits were inevitable and equally inconsequential, it's not being used as a "poster child" event to illustrate the need for some kind of reform, the only things that make it different from hundreds of other derailments were the fire, risk of explosion (which didn't happen), and the evacuation, none of which seem important enough to make the article "for the ages" encyclopedic. It is, unquestionably, a well-written and well-sourced article, but it just doesn't have the importance needed to stay here. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• List of railway accidents in the United States would be an ideal article to which cases such as this with marginal notabilty could be merged or redirected. Unfortunately it doesn't exist. This derailment must be of some noteworthiness when considering the history of railway safety in the USA, but it doesn't warrant it's own article. Delete unless somewhere to merge to can be found. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. This freight derailment did not cause injuries or have and enduring effects. It is already included in List of rail accidents (2000–2009). Edison (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a completely NN event. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Might have been newsworthy then, but no evidence of actual notability then or now. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTNEWS Admrboltz (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:EFFECT. This crash has had lasting effects, as can be shown by sourced information on lawsuits. Dew Kane (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Looks like a fairly notable event. Dough4872 04:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This person does not seem to be notable at all and surely fails WP:GNG. The article is very poorly written and has no references. I cannot find any information about the subject on Google. It is suspected that this article may be an autobiography (see page history) or possibly even a hoax. AndrewvdBK (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)*[reply]
• Comment. Cannot be an autobiography; Kaduvakulam Antony died about 10 years ago. Salih (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More results on google can be found using the alternate spelling "Kaduvakkulam Antony". Salih (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative KeepIf in fact he appeared in 300 professional films in his country, he is likely to have sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. An actor with a 300 film resume in the US would be unlikely to have his bio article deleted. I found 2 books (snippet view only) in which he is listed as a cast member in Indian films from the 1970's: [8] and [9]. IMDB shows him in 4 films. They are not generally considered a reliable source. I found nothing at Google News Archive, but they may not have good coverage of papers in his country. Perhaps someone can check better for non_English coverage and let us know its significance, such as [10]. Edison (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well known Malayalam film actor of yester years who won an award for the best comedy actor for his very first film in 1961. An article about him in Malayalam is available here, thanks to Edison. Salih (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One need not be notable only in the West to be detemined notable per applicable criteria, as notable to India/Kerala is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. The actor's legthy career meets WP:ENT. Winning an award notable to Malayalam film (even if not to Hollywood) in 1961 meets WP:ANYBIO. That he has made it into Malayalam enduring record through books, and was considered notable enough by Malayalam press for them to write obits about him, is indicative that non-English and/or hardcopy Malayalam sources exist. A reasonable presumption toward notability has been declared and shown. All the article needs is sources added to verify its informations... which appears an addressable issue that does not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do the cleanups and sourcing if the article survives the AfD. Salih (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepAs per User:Salih.Hillcountries (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Salih's reasoning--Sodabottle (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The single source listed for this article does not mention nitrofullerene. I believe this chemical compound does not exist and/or the content of this article is just made up, and there is no indication of where the supposed data comes from. Because the content of this article is not verifiable (WP:V), the article should be deleted. Prod was removed with the comment "hundreds of refs available", but I don't believe that there are hundreds of references to a chemical compound that consists of C60 with 60 nitro groups. "Nitrofullerene" can refer to a compound with one nitro group, but that's not what this article is about. ChemNerd (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update. A thorough search of the chemical literature indicates that there is only one reference to this compound in the primary scientific literature: . doi:10.1016/j.theochem.2008.02.030. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help). It is a computational study indicating that this compound is purely hypothetical. This single mention in the literature does not confer sufficient notability to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, in my opinion. All other occurrences of "nitrofullerene" in the chemical literature (and in Google web searches) refer to different chemical compounds than the one described in this article. ChemNerd (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (can change a vote though) - the title is valid, the topic is valid, and I was about to rewrite the article, and I could, but I would remove nearly all current information outright as misleading (obviously 60/60 substitution is practically impossible in this case), thus delete is Ok with me. Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a reaxys search - I found one paper which mentions "hexanitro[60]fullerene" - nothing with 60 nitros.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These molecules were dreamed up, which is increasingly common with computational tools. They are not notable IMHO. Obviously someone (seeking funding for designing new explosives) spent some time on these articles.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as too speculative, per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Update I produced that wiki page on a theoretical molecule on which I start working. I haven’t yet produced any physically tangible material. Just after Christmas time, seeing the reaction, I decided to pay attention to the commentaries before completing the text. My opinion was that a thing exists from the moment it has been imagined and theoretically designed. According to this idea, a theoretical molecule is not less real. It has just never been bring to materialisation. There is a difference between "material" and "real". Since theoretical elements and concepts can not be part of wikipedia, I will not wait until the page get deleted. I will delete it by myself. A question of dignity. I plan to read the next commentaries, before I delete the page. Regards,Jfweemaes (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Fullerene chemistry. C
  ₆₀(NO
  ₂)
  _x probably exists for x very small, but I do not think it is notable enough for a separate article. I would prefer to keep a paragraph or something like that in the fullerene chemistry article. Nergaal (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge That is a good idea. I can describe simplier fullerenes following a progressive form up to C
  ₆₀(NO
  ₂)
  ₆₀ and list known on-going works. My first writing experience in Wikipedia will have nevertheless been appreciated by me. I am open to the idea of merging it to Fullerene chemistry. I appreciate your commentaries. Jfweemaes (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/10alatham nancy 17:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Collins (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Young footballer on books of Preston North End but who has never played above the 5th tier of English football, so fails WP:NSPORT#Association football; not enough media coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline. Re-create as and when he actually plays full-pro League football. Struway2 (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 13:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not (yet) notable enough. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Snow Close (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 01:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Suit Gundam 00 the Movie: Awakening of the Trailblazer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Little notability, badly written article with little materials other than lengthy plot summary, little sources citing real-life impact Joppyhoppy (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep , It seems there can be reception information found for it, though it currently needs work. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 13:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The film was released nationwide, so it passes WP:NFILM in that respect. The article needs a lot of work, but that is not a reason to delete it. At most it could be merged into Mobile Suit Gundam 00 for which this film is a coninuation of. —Farix (t | c) 14:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as meeting all necessary notability requirements. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree the above users/editors. This should be retain. The source material came out before sources became established. Article should be revised and shorten meet Wikipedia guide lines. -- Colt9033 (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article is notable, and although it needs some working on, that shouldn't be the reason for deletion. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per meeting WP:NF. Addressable issues are not a reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article is imperfect, but meets WP:NF as it was released nationwide. --Malkinann (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. CSE hits. Apparently also shown in Singapore. --Gwern (contribs) 18:00 4 January 2011 (GMT)
• Snow Keep per above, an AfD is not a place to send an article that just needs work done on it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Reception section does say it was shown in a lot of theaters, and made millions of dollars. Its notable. Remember, AFD is not cleanup. Dream Focus 07:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Major movie productions are notable. I'm surprised this was listed on afd. ScienceApe (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Meets all notability requirements, and like the TV series, will likely see a worldwide release as soon as it gets translated. Article definitely needs editing for synopsis length and the addition of other standard movie information, but not outright deletion.the_one092001 (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment With 12 people going for keep here and none against, does this warrent an early closure? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. By Jimfbleak per WP:CSD#A7.  Sandstein  10:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There are many things wrong with this article. It certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC and there are no references. This band is not notable and have very few links on Google. One of the main problems is that this article is entirely in German, which is not allowed. The article seems to have been written by a band member (see page history). AndrewvdBK (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—Why is this article red-linked?—RJH (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unreferenced BLP, and does not appear to satisfy WP:PROF. TimothyRias (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC) TimothyRias (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• weak Keep how can you tell whether it meets wp:prof without a search? Checking Scopus, I find 32 publications, every one of them in excellent international journals. Highest citations, 37, 17, 16, 14 all ffrom Physical Review or Physical Review Letters; h=11, meaning 11 papers with 11 or more citations. I added refs to the top 2, so it is no longer unref. Full professor & dean of his section of major international university. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:PROF neither being a full professor nor being dean is enough to establish notability. His publications and citations seem typically what you would expect of a person in his position after 25 years in the field, but I don't think it is enough to establish that he has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources as is mandated by WP:PROF. (For the record I did look at his publications before starting this AfD, and found nothing to convince me that he satisfies any of the notability guidelines.)TimothyRias (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. h-index is very low for his field. Highest-cited paper is 37 after 25 years in the field? Article makes absolutely no claim of notable discoveries. WP:PROF requires that the subject is more noteworthy than the typical professor, which is clearly not the case here. Abductive (reasoning) 01:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I find GS cites to be 15, 14, 13 12, 11. This is low for a physicist. Scopus is probably better but still not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Week Keep: Evidence seems to indicate he is a/the leading Physicist at the leading university in Argentina. National notability (Msrasnw (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

• No such "national" guideline or policy exists. I have never seen such a notion put forward in an AfD on a professor before. Abductive (reasoning) 12:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Delete. Publications in "Physical Reviews", he was quoted 211 times according to ISI citation index. This seems to be enough to establish notability of a physicist. But looking more carefully at the article, I do not see any useful information about the subject. What he actually did, in terms of science? Any discoveries or theories? It tells nothing.Biophys (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Why is having 211 citations "enough to establish notability of a physicist"? To me it doesn't seem to be that much, are there full professors out there with less citations?TimothyRias (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Dean is not a high enough level of academic administration to pass WP:PROF#C6, the citation record is not strong enough to convince me of a pass of #C1, and though there are a reasonable number of Spanish-language news stories quoting him I didn't see any that provide nontrivial coverage that is actually about him, so I'm not convinced of a pass of WP:GNG either. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at h-index of only 11. It should be at least 50% higher to be worth considering an article. Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete via G5. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Webb (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Footballer who has never played above the 6th tier of English football, so fails WP:NSPORT#Association football; not enough media coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline. Prod removed without explanation. Struway2 (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete record breaking number of appearances not notable enough, (far more notable than some players in league 2 who automatically qualify thogh). content could be merged into team's article. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 13:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unremarkable person. The only 'references' are links to the German Wikipedia and appear to have nothing in common whatsoever with this entry. The listed combat missions bear no connection to the subject. The geneology section is superfluous and irrelevant. Possible hoax. Kudpung (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: unverfified and unreferenced BLP. Utterly fails WP:MILPEOPLE, and even if his ancestry could be confirmed, notability is not inherited. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to clarify, the links to the deWP are to the family name, and articles on two deceased distinguished members of the family; none of the articles mention him. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per Bahamut. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Bahamut. Anotherclown (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Dewritech (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:N & WP:SOLDIER; furthermore, in the namesakes section there are individuals who do meet notability, however that in itself not impart notability on the subject (see WP:INHERIT), that is unless it can be verified by reference that he is a pretender to a head of state position. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the website www.osterhaus-ahnen.de. Over 10 years of hard genealogical work. All non-profit and free for anyone, respect. It is his biography a varied life as a soldier (fight against terrorism in the world)and family researchers. I think it deserves respect and recognition. The German entry in the Wikipedia is prepared and followed. Now he turns to the international family tree for every one in the world, also in the US. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checker ce2005 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per G4 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adie Harris (footballer) nancy 17:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Footballer who fails WP:NSPORT#Association football by never having played in a fully-professional league, and without enough media coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline. Prod removed without explanation. Struway2 (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not (yet) notable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nomination, he has never played at anywhere near the required level. If, by chance, he should, then an article can be created. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 13:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO since they have not had a charting single or album. I admit it is difficult to judge because ghits are imprecise in this case. If some one can show they pass then OK, but I could not. Triwbe (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for administrator - If this article is deleted, the article for their album Journey of The Shaman should be speedy deleted by rule. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails every criterion offered at WP:BAND. Delete this article to destroy its history, then remake it into the redirect to Nemrut that it was at first. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The band member is correct that Nemrut is not a proper redirect. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree with Binksternet. Fails WP:BAND. Fails WP:NOTABLE. As someone from the actual band appears to be participating in this discussion, perhaps they would like to read both WP:BAND & WP:NOTABLE and explain why this article is legitimate instead being a case of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Self-promotion. NickCT (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In response to the statements from the band member above below, unfortunately Wikipedia is based on notability and that requires being noticed and covered by outside sources. Until that happens, you will have to promote the band elsewhere because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You may qualify for an encyclopedia article in the future, but you are not there yet. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note:To Whom It May Concern;

This is Mert Gocay, the founder and the leading member of the Turkish music group Nemrud. I would like to respond to the discussion on the possible deletion of Nemrud's page (which had been prepared by a devoted fan of the Group) from Wikipedia.

Nemrud is a Turkish progressive rock band which made its first album very recently in 2010 under Lirik muzik label.Nemrud has gone beyond the Turkish standard rock or popular line-chorus structure songs and pushed the technical and composition limits of rock music. In a few weeks Journey of the shaman sold out in Turkey; following the domestic success, world wide well known progressive rock label Musea Records approached the band and released the album in December 2010.

Please kindly note that the band actually exists (contrary to the comments published on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nemrud), and the Group is currently preparing for a few concerts (as well as their second album). More info about our group can be found at the following websites:

- myspace/nemrudmusic - musea records.com - nemrudband.com

here are some evidences of album selling websites: - itunes http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/journey-of-the-shaman/id405196378 -amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Shaman-Nemrud/dp/B004GAISKO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1294324234&sr=8-2 - cduniverse http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=8432230

To my understanding there has been a misunderstanding (or a false connection) between the historical/touristic region/place Nemrut in Turkey with the name of our Group. The name of our Group is inspired from Nemrut, however, there should be no direct connection between Nemrud and Nemrut in Wikipedia. I would hence like yourselves to confirm that Nemrud's page should be staying on Wikipedia on the back of the above reasons.

Thank you. Kind regards,

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nemrud" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulgen1368 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FC Barcelona 1–3 Real Madrid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A {{prod}} was removed by the original author of the page with the edit summary of "remove lazy prod" which, in my mind, didn't respond to the reasoning of the prod namely: No evidence of particular notability for this Barcelona v Real Madrid match. No more or less notable than any other Clasico or Champions League semi-final tie. So this is a procedural listing. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article is presently a content fork from El Clasico. No records were set in the match. Nothing of particular note happened other than one player returned to his former club (Luis Figo) and got a bit of grief from the fans of that club (FC Barcelona). All that anyone would really want to know is in the existing articles. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All content is already at El Clásico. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think there's enough sources to be able to write an article - this content can easily be included in El Clasico and/or 2001–02 UEFA Champions League. Trebor (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - already covered in the El Clasico article, not worthy of a seperate article. GiantSnowman 13:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - quite certain none of the above has even looked for evidence of notability in books and articles. Has 2 pages in Phil Balls book of Spanish football (18-20), several more in Burns' book on barcelona (2009 ed.) and the list goes on (not to mention the countless of Spanish books on the subject). But of course this hasn't set a record nor is it a premier league match, so ipso facto it cannot be notable. Sandman888 (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't explain why it has zero detail not already in El Clásico, or why it can't just be merged to that article. Lots of matches have a couple of pages in a book about them, why is this so special? Answer: it's not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see a mind open to reason and proof in an Afd. And no, no other game has a couple of pages in a book that summarises the entire history of spanish football, but of course you already knew that. It has zero detail because i started it yesterday, however it took only a couple of hours for a PL-fan to slap a prod on it so have no desire to waste time on something a bunch of record-obsessed users will vote to delete. I shd of course have started the Athletic Bilbao 18-1 Ceuta article because it sat a record 60-odd years ago, tho noone has mentioned it since... Sandman888 (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it did - read what I said. I said "a book". A book is a book, whether it's about the history of Spanish football, or an 1960s book about Accrington Stanley. This is the first time you imply that you're going to expand the article - if you're going to do that, let's hear about it. It has nothing to do with records - tell us why it's a notable game, rather than ranting. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Ball's book, he refers to the first match Figo played in Camp Nou for Real Madrid in October 2000, then a league match in November 2002. He doesn't refer to the Champions League match at all. What is your point? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I believe user:Sandman888 is confusing various El Clasico matches. The major trouble involving Barcelona fans about Figo appears to have happened in a November 2002 La Liga match, rather than the Champions League tie in the previous season. (Goal.com, Daily Telegraph ESPN Soccernet) Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it seems all the evidence here now points to an entirely un-notable match that could be covered in one sentence elsewhere, if really necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even the article itself does not make an assertion of notability Spiderone 13:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sign of having received the enduring coverage required by WP:EVENT. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi,

If you can find some more infomation on this article it could well be notable.The fact that, if it's true, 500 million people watched it that must be notable for something. A suggestion-You could merge it to El Clásico European cup matches or 2001-02 Champions League? I do, however, see both side's of this argument.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable enough and not much context. Kante4 (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested prod. Has not made a professional appearance as a footballer. EchetusXe 10:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't get deleted. He's probably going pro soon anyway. He's played for England U16 and England U17. An admin said yesterday that if that is so, which it is, then it's fine. How many times do I have to say... Wackslas :) (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. EchetusXe 10:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "He's probably going pro soon?" Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And "soon" is relative, especially since he's only sixteen. Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL (as well as WP:TOOSOON). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 11:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball and the article doesn't cite anything. What admin told you this? Peter.C • talk 11:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obviously fails WP:NFOOTY. A google search only came up with one article containing "significant coverage" (added now to the article). Unless someone can find some more sources this also fails WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly and easily fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and [{WP:GNG]]. GiantSnowman 13:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yep, WP:NFOOTBALL says specifically youth players are not notable unless they have played at senior international level or in a fully professional league. Karenjc 17:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there's a difference between speedy deletion and normal deletion. The admin who declined the speedy was correct as his appearances for England U16 / U17 are an assertion of notability. However, these are not enough to meet the relevant notability guidelines, and there don't appear to be enough quality sources to meet the general guidelines either. If he makes an appearance in a fully pro league or senior international match, the article can be recreated - until then, delete. Bettia (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Anome (talk • contribs)

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

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

I expanded the article with material from other articles. Does anyone want it? This goes to prove that you can make absurd articles like car door slamming. Marcus Qwertyus 08:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Gunshot. Or whatever. Pick one, but having both of these would be ridiculous. Shadowjams (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge Obviously gunfire or gunshots have been studied and reported on and are important topics. Wolfview (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Gunshot. Another example of the engine's poor default search perhaps? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• An unassuming and helpful little disambiguation article disambiguating four things by this name (and inviting people to write some missing articles) has been blanked by Marcus Qwertyus (with the false edit summary "cleanup") merely in order to then pointfully nominate it for deletion a few minutes later. Blanking an article then pointfully nominating it for deletion is not productive nor an improvement to the encyclopaedia, nor indeed helpful to readers who want to find the disambiguated subjects (nor indeed helpful to writers who want to see where potential for further articles is). Give us the original disambiguation article back. Uncle G (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is not a notable software product. No third-party sources. Zilkane (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources showing notability. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Can't find anything that is reliable; I'm afraid there isn't anything for notability here. –MuZemike 22:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. withdraw as sources have been added and promotional matierial removed by Crusio. I will move the title to Respiratory Research (journal). (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 04:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respiratory research (journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Based on one reference or outer link (it's own website). Does not state how it is notable or endorsed, no links for verifibility. Mainly reads like a advertisement or "This is why you should read me" page. Dusti^*poke* 07:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Article was created by a very inexperienced editor (total of 13 edits) and proposed for speedy deletion 1 minute after creation. I have added an infobox, removed promotional language, and added some references. Journal is indexed in major databases and has very respectable impact factor, ranking it in the top 25% of its field. The article should be moved to a title with correct capitalization, "Respiratory Research (journal)", but I guess that will have to wait until this AfD has been closed. --Crusio (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Crusio has swooped in and saved the day, this article is highly referenced and is notable. Peter.C • talk 11:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Please keep the article in place. It will be developed to better conform to the wikipedia template for articles about scientific journals. It is NOT intended for advertisement or marketing of a company. / Kind regards / Jan Lötvall / co-Editor-in-Chief Respir Res Jan.lotvall (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Forward operating base#FOBs in Iraq. Davewild (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Just one of many non-notable forward operating bases in Iraq. Subject lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and therefore fails the general notability guideline in WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redirect: utterly lacks notability and references. One of dozens (maybe hundreds?) of FOBs in Iraq, and not known independant coverage or significance. The thing is a mess of POV and OR as well (sounds like it was edited by a bitter soldier or two that were stationed there at one point). bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Little coverage in reliable sources, OR as per Bahamut.Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Forward Operating Base#FOBs in Iraq. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea IMO, makes sense. Anotherclown (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I think List of United States Army installations in Iraq might make more sense, but I would be okay with either. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable amateur ice hockey player who does not pass the notability guidelines established in WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Prod was contested on the basis of Rinne having played in 3 SM-liiga games in 2008–09. However, he did not play in these games, only dressed in them as per this source. Further, this source and this source further identify that he has never played in an SM-liiga game, and therefore fails the criteria of having played in a fully professional game in a top league. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 06:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —– Nurmsook! ^talk... 06:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —– Nurmsook! ^talk... 06:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nurmsook. --Nlu (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, only dressed but did not play. Per past precedence for sports figures, you have to actually play to qualify. -DJSasso (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY since he hasn't played in a professional league yet. HeyMid (contribs) 13:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it doesn't mee WP:NHOCKEY notability requirements. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The creation of a re-direct is an editorial one, and if someone wants to do that, go ahead. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shock Absorber (countermeasure) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I don't think it's notable. Marcus Qwertyus 05:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It would be better to have an article on this general kind of thing, rather than a specific brand. Wolfview (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Improve: We have separate articles on the missiles, it would seem to me the countermeasures should get the same. Clearly notable. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: lack of notability established by independant and reliable sources. Heck, the article barely makes a description: so it's a jammer made for missiles. Why does this specific brand need an article independant of Infrared countermeasures and Anti-tank guided missile? bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have articles on BGM-71 TOW, instead of just using Anti-tank guided missile? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because TOWs are notable.Marcus Qwertyus 02:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect to Infrared countermeasures. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as blatant advertisement. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Pure advertisement to boot. Should have been CSD'd, but CSD (and PROD) tag removed by another editor. ttonyb (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence that company meets WP:CORP, likely WP:SPAM. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G11; tagged as such. Blatant spam written in the first and second person; no reliable Ghits on the company name. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

non notable neologism WuhWuzDat 04:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are many reliable sources easily found through Google News Archive that don't just use this term in passing, but discuss and define the term itself. Read the policy on neologisms to verify that the coverage of this particular topic in reliable sources meets Wikipedia standards for notability. Cullen328 (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Neogolism fail... despite what Cullen says... it's not a widespread term, and there's nothing in this "article" that isn't easily covered in the hydrogen transportation or railcar articles. Very easy redirect. Shadowjams (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a widespread term. There are several thousand technical articles and news items online. The United Nations hosted the Sixth International Hydrail Conference in Istanbul last year and the Government of Korea will host the 7th this summer in Seoul. If :hydrail" was a neologism when it appeared in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Hydrogen Energy in 2004, that was 7 years ago. It's now the generally accepted term of art and newly involved scientists refer to the Wiki entry for the precise definition. The Univerity of North Carolina's hydrail dot org site is visited by 600-800 unique visitors every month from an average of 45 countries. At one time Google references reached 111,000. Some 15 countries have presented at the six hydrail conferences held around the world. To say hydrail is not widespread is unsupportable. To delete it would impair development of an important new environmentally advanced transportation technology.H S Thompson (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by H S Thompson (talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The "It is a widespread term" entry was unsigned through unintended omission. Signed: H S Thompson (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate "Keep" vote struck out. WuhWuzDat 17:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article seems to be primarily intended to promote the hydrail conferences, which in turn seem to be promoting the newly-coined term "hydrail". --DAJF (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--The hydrail definition has been on Wikipedia for years. The references to the conferences were only added a few days ago to counter a deletion proposal that asserted the term was little used. Content of the thousands of hydrail references on the Internet show it is serving to enable developers of this Green technology to interact. The conferences are non-commercial and almost all presentations are by scholars and government environmental and transportation agencies. This can be confirmed using the just-added references under "research."H S Thompson (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (redirect to hydrogen transportation or railcar). Self-serving article, apparently aiming to establish a new term using wikipedia and the said conference. The text is far from encyclopedic and possible rewriting would be easier to start from scratch. Materialscientist (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The assertion that the hydrail article is "self-serving" begs the question as to what "self" could conceivably be served and what benefits, other than the societal good cited in the article, could be "served" by it. Viewing the lists of Hydrail Conference presenters in the article's Research references refutes the "self-serving" accusation. Is the disinterestedness of the "Delete" advocates comparably annotated? H S Thompson (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I have struck out the duplicate keep !votes. ONE !vote per editor, PLEASE! WuhWuzDat 06:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep There are multiple references that show the notability of this term in the article itself, let alone external to it. It should not have been proposed for deletion in the first place. Please don't waste our time. Francis Bond (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references which show the term being used in IEEE Spectrum and Nature. I think you should withdraw the nomination now. Francis Bond (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has also appeared in the following:

• the print edition (not online) of the American Public Transportation Association's weekly newspaper, Passenger Transport: "Streetcar Propulsion: New Technology Up Ahead?" - page 17
• The Stanly News and Press (Albemarle, North Carolina): "New alchemy for Badin: Aluminum to hydrogen"
• It was in the lead front page print story, with a color photo, in The Charlotte [NC] Observer, probably on July 3, 2006, now online in Fuel Cell Today.

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lakers–Kings rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It was nominated for deletion in January 2008; the result at that time was "Merge/Redirect", which apparently did not actually occur. Since then, this supposed rivalry has become even less and less notable. I actually see no reason why anything should be merged to either Los Angeles Lakers or Sacramento Kings. I am opining an outright delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Things don't "become even less and less notable". If something was notable once, then it's notable forever. Wikipedia rightly has articles about all kinds of things of purely historical interest. But on this specific case the rough consensus at the last AfD was that it wasn't notable, which is why it was to be merged and redirected.—S Marshall T/C 10:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In this case, what I mean is that it really wasn't notable to start with, and any rationale for notability has dispelled itself with the passage of time. (See WP:FAME.) --Nlu (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree, not notable then, not notable now. The Kings slowly moved westward from Rochester to Cincinnati to Kansas City to Sacramento, though they've been in California for the last 25 years. Even though they are in the same NBA division, they only meet 4 times in an 82 game season, and there's not the history of playoff encounters as with the Celtics or the Spurs. I'd sooner accept a rivalry between the Lakers and the NHL Los Angeles Kings. Mandsford 20:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If this deserves an article, then so do 10,000 other sports rivalries which are more notable.Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a traditional NBA rivalry. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - could you please provide a link to the first AfD instead of looping to this one? matt91486 (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The automatic linker somehow didn't link it and I can't figure out how to get it to, but here's the link: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lakers-Kings_rivalry. (I linked it in my own initial nominating comments, but I admit it might not be clear enough.) --Nlu (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

She just joined Morning Musume today. She doesn't seem very notable. JDDJS (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]