Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 19: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:06, 19 March 2011

< 18 March	20 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penguin Vic

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

Still a short article with no references establishing WP:Notability 5 years after first AfD Closeapple (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Closeapple (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Closeapple (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (per my own nomination): 5 year old abandoned stub with still no claim or citation of notability following inconclusive AfD in 2006. Per essay Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over, if it's article-worthy, it will get re-created. Only bringing this to AfD instead of WP:PROD as a courtesy because there was a previous AfD. --Closeapple (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is about a campaign to increase tourism in Victoria, Australia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There's no indication of notability or apparent interest in developing the article in any way. Nick-D (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Machan(film)

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

Insufficient secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 19:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Fixed nom by completing Step III (add to log). Please close seven days after 06:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One: [1], Two [2], Three [3]. Pretty sure that constitutes secondary source coverage. It literally took half a minute to find those.. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources found prove its notable. Dream Focus 09:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close The nominator may certainly have been acting in good faith when he sent this article directly to AFD when it was just three hours old without first tagging it for concerns nor speaking with the new author about how it might be improved.[4] But the fact that so MANY reliable sources were easily found [5] makes me request that he give more consideration to the instructions at WP:BEFORE prior to nominating anything in the future, specially as WP:Deletion policy explains the valid grounds for deletion, and strongly encourages that if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing. It was quite easy to take the nomimated stub and expand and source it. And I hope the newb author has not been chased away. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator withdrawal I withdraw the nomination per large number of secondary sources. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 19:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn C. Phillips

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

Fails WP:BIO notability (not one of the major listed stars of the films in which he acted, I'm not finding any independent in-depth reporting about him; "most well known" and "known for" aren't supported and being "most something" among smalltime things isn't a notability point itself). Unresolved tags for notability and BLP-sources for 6 months. DMacks (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely see where you're coming from. I may have created the article, but I'd be alright if it was to be deleted. --Matthew (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2014 (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. postdlf (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Duggan

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

Non-notable footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, thus failing WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G.I.D

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

PROD was removed without comment or improvement. PROD rationale was "Unreferenced. Possible neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary: WP:DICTIONARY". The page may also be a possible CSD G3 hoax. Kudpung (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is barely more than patent nonsense-- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 05:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and anyway the article has no sources whatsoever. JIP | Talk 10:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and speedy close. Written as a joke (and with poor punctuation in the title!) –SJ + 18:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get It Deleted as plain ol' junk. —Tamfang (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete vandalism RadioFan (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non-notable neologism. LK (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted. ttonyb (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig gang

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

Does not conform to Speedy Deletion standards (at least my understanding of them). Other than that, this is a non notable, non referenced group that has almost 0 hits from searches. Although most hits are from a South Park episode about the character Craig. Bluefist ^talk 03:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete wow I would have speedied this ASAP. It is nothing but a crass gathering of nonsense. Nothing notable at all. Golgofrinchian (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Looks like WP:CSD#G10 applies. I've boldly added that tag to the article page, if someone disagrees with the CSD, we can always conclude here. Probably would have been best to WP:PROD the article first as well. Looking at the article more closely, it alleges illegal activity, but it's mostly just nonsense (G1), lacking in context (A1), or fails to indicate importance (A7). SDY (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I knew there was something I forgot in between CSD and AfD. Bluefist ^talk 03:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per previous comments and the fact that this article is completely unsourced and non-MOS. Also sounds like non-NPOV.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Trikalinos

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

This page was previously nominated for deletion in 2005 because of concerns about notability. The article has not been expanded in the intervening years and contains no references, which appear to be difficult to find. In particular, I have not been able to locate any accounts of the subject's scientific work, apart from original journal articles. It was mentioned in the previous discussion that the subject was president of the Greek national federation of university professors (POSDEP), but I have only been able to find two brief mentions of this in the press. Will Orrick (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Sailsbystars (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:BIO. Monterey Bay (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only minimal on GS. Not enough for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Not invisible on Greek Google. Have added a couple of references (including a University and the BBC). Meets general notability as the president of a national federation of teachers. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 11:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nipson - non-English sources exist. –SJ + 18:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very little evidence of impact on physics scholarship. Of the order of 1000 citations are usually needed for a keep for scientists. There are few here. Please identify the 29 papers published in international journals. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

As far as I can tell, the BBC article is about the same as the two English-language sources I found: it contains one quote by the subject acting as a spokesman for his organization, but doesn't provide much information on which to base a biographical article about the man himself. At best it corroborates that he was chairman of a federation of academic staff, but I am doubtful that this is sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. As for his university web page, this does not distinguish him from the hundreds of thousands of other academics with similar pages. Will Orrick (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the English-language sources, so that non-Greek speakers can better judge. Will Orrick (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Existence ≠ Notability, and the sources found so far establish only his existence. I see no evidence that he passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't need to pass WP:PROF since he already passes General Notability as the President of a national federation of teachers. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:GNG has no "president of a national federation of teachers" clause. WP:PROF maybe does if you could establish the importance of this national federation. What WP:GNG does require is nontrivial coverage in multiple reliably-published third-party sources. It's essential to have something we can say about the subject that we can verify by looking at the sources, and currently we don't have anything about him that is properly sourced in that way: we have only his self-published faculty profile and a couple of news stories that quote him but don't say anything about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have added more references from Kathimerini (top newspaper in Greece) and from Greek Sky TV's online publication Skai.gr. Multiple reliable third-party news sources meets WP:GNG with ease. There are also multiple references at Greek government websites where P.O.S.D.E.P. interfaces with the Greek government (do I really need to start listing those as well?). Here is the official website of P.O.S.D.E.P.. Have also added a reference to a publication of a national conference organised by the Ministry of Education where he represented P.O.S.D.E.P. as its president. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm still not convinced. The new sources still only mention him trivially (as a source for a quote, or with a single line stating that he was elected to the post) or not at all (the last one, from Oct 2004). At this point, number of sources is not what's needed to pass WP:GNG, it's rather the depth of coverage within the sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Here is an article with his name in the title. The entire article is dedicated to the opinion of Christos Trikalinos and the organisation that he represents. Χ.Τρικαλινός:Οι προτάσεις Παπανδρέου για την παιδεία υποκρύπτουν τεράστιους κινδύνους. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It still doesn't actually say much about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Multiple reliable sources, even if they are not in-depth, are still more than adequate to meet WP:GNG. I have supplied references from four excellent newspapers, two radio stations (one Greek and one British), a television station (Greek Sky) (two articles including one dedicated to Christos Trikalinos), and the Greek Ministry of Education. More than adequate to meet WP:GNG (and some). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe and David Epstein. Does not meet WP:PROf or WP:GNG (only trivial in-passing mentions). --Crusio (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on a second. Xxanthippe placed a comment before I introduced several references that easily qualify for WP:GNG and there appears to be nothing that I can do to satisfy Eppstein. Xxanthippe should reconsider position. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've been watching the article and the debate from the start and I'm in agreement with David Eppstein. From WP:BASIC: trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. All of the sources given are quotes from Trikalinos. Not one independent of the subject gives any information beyond his name and title. Furthermore, being the head of a union of scholars is not the same as being a member of a major academic body, so I don't think he qualifies for inclusion under WP:PROF criteria 3 either. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete meets neither WP:GNG (lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources) nor WP:PROF (1 paper does not make an academic career) RadioFan (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I had not even bothered to look at WP:PROF because he easily meets WP:GNG. But now you come to mention it. He actually meets WP:PROF too. Item 6 in WP:PROF is "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society". And he has as the President of P.O.S.D.E.P. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being head of POSDEP, which is concerned with employment conditions for academics, does not establish notability as a scholar in the way that being president of a university or head of a major academic society would, so WP:PROF doesn't apply. I am not sure what Wikipedia's standards are for inclusion of heads of labor unions, but it seems untenable to try to maintain biographies of every past president of every national federation of every profession. In my opinion, the main problem with over-broad criteria for inclusion is that secondary sources simply aren't available on which to base a substantive biography. A bio page can languish for years with few or no editors watching or updating it, and with nobody able or willing to assess the accuracy and significance of its content. Will Orrick (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - POSDEP has a far wider role than "employment conditions for academics" you only have to look at a translation of the POSDEP website to see that. CLICK HERE to see a translation. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough. But there's an enormous difference between between a learned society and a professional organization, which is what POSTDEP looks like to me. Item 6 in WP:PROF specifies leadership of a "notable national or international scholarly society". Will Orrick (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not a "professional organisation" . It's an organisation that discusses and lobbies for the best interests of education (by scholars). He also organized the 1st Panhellenic Physics Education Congress in Greece. 1ο Πανελληνιο Εκπαιδευτικό Συνεδριο Φυσικών for the Union of Greek Physicists eefthes.gr Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article seems to have met WP:GNG requirements.Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 05:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Menarch

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

Nominating Comment I initially nominated it for speedy delete due to it reading like a joke. Menarche is a woman's first period. There is also a reference to 'nardburns' insinuating burning testicles. The article appears to belong in the Paul Menard page as an addition. The author has been editing it since the initial speedy delete. It makes a bit more sense now. Suggesting Merge into the Paul Menard page. Golgofrinchian (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nardburns are a reference to facial hair, side burns that look like Paul Menards. (talk) 19 March 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 02:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Ha, no, this should have been speedied as a hoax. Delete. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A merger with Paul Menard's Wikipage is ill advised considering the Paul Menard Empire and Menarch operate separately from Paul Menard. Possibly an addition of the Paul Menard Empire with Menarch as a subtitle would be best.Dig818 (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey there Dig818, this page will be for other editors a chance to review the article and see how it appears to them. You are free to comment here and it is encouraged. It is not a voting system but a way to come to a consensus. This actually gives you more time to perfect the article. In the mean time while it is being discussed feel free to edit the article to make it better, such as explaining the nardburns. I will not be making any further comments as this is meant as an independent review of the article. Good luck! Golgofrinchian (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Golgofrinchian. I am not familiar with making wikipages as I'm sure you noticed. I will try to make the page more clear.Dig818 (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance How would I go about creating The Paul Menard Empire, and placing Menarch under it. Therefore, topics such as 'nardburns' can be explained. Dig818 (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't appear to be a hoax, exactly, but based on what I've found so far, I doubt that the Paul Menard Empire is notable enough to sustain its own article. There's a bunch of stuff about this goofy fan club in non-reliable sources--blogs, bulletin boards, SB.com, Urban Dictionary, and the like--but as for reliable sources, so far I have found only one brief reference to the Empire: three sentences in today's (3/18/2011) Birmingham News[6]. That might be enough to justify a reference to the club at Paul Menard, but not its own article, and certainly not an article for "Menarch". Unless more reliable sources turn up, I have to !vote delete on this article. Maybe a userfy would be OK to allow the Menard folks to dig for more reliable sources, which may actually be in the offing. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another source: today there's a column at NASCAR.com entitled "Menard's empire continues to grow with success", starting with this: "If only every month was Menarch. . . . Yes, Menard has his own fan club called The Paul Menard Empire. They even have their own Facebook page, where they proclaim the current month on the calendar as Menarch in Paul's honor and boast that their favorite driver 'also possesses the most awesome facial hair in all of NASCAR.'" However, I still think any references to this fan group and its tongue-in-cheek support belong in Menard's article, not a separate one.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would suggest redirecting this to menarche as a plausible misspelling. NASCAR fans are unfamiliar with that word, it seems; if they knew it, they likely would have chosen a different name. It means a woman's first menstrual cycle. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that they knew that. The plentiful non-RS content turned up by Google makes clear that this whole thing was intended to be satirical in the first place.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ihcoyc there is no need to attack the intelligence of NASCAR fans. Especially when it is easy to see the vastly different pronunciations of both Menarch and menarche. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dig818 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge into his article. Too trivial to belong anywhere, even in Paul Menard's article. Let this meme become much more well-known if this content is to ever exist at Wikipedia. Royal broil 00:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and because this makes Wikipedia look stupid. Bearian (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the Empire and one of the main propagators of the Menarch name. I'm a student at the UW School of Pharmacy, so I'm well aware of what Menarche means, it just happens to be a coincidence and something I did not think of until after the fact. I am in talks with Menards and RCR about the Empire and Menarch itself, so it is not just some minor meme at the moment.Phathead (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and because Wikipedia should not be used to promote minor memes. --Falcadore (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:ARTSPAM. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 13:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't even notable for its own article. You may be able to include something in his article. --Nascar1996 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" !votes fail to provide evidence to support his notability under WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Ambtman

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

This has the look of self-promotion. There are no independent sources. A quick Google doesn't bring up anything useful and substantial. He'd be notable if he was party leader, but the president is not the leader. He's basically the head administrator. He'd be notable if this was for a federal party, but it's not. He doesn't hold public office. He holds a position that nobody else even sought at the time (only half a year ago). Now, I do think many party presidents, even at a provincial level are notable. But this person, based on the current version of this article, is not. Rob (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he is a young leader does not mean that his information should not be available on wikipedia. The information is readily available on the Party's Official Website and as the complainant openly stated "party presidents, even at a provincial level are notable". This one user has attacked several Alberta Liberal wikipedia pages and clearly has an agenda to keep them off of wikipedia. User:Vinsher
- I said "many" were notable. This isn't one. I haven't "attacked" anything. I made a page for an eventual Liberal MLA, and added to a number. I've nominated for deletion articles related to different parties. This isn't a partisan question. Unfortunately, no party's web site is considered a reliable source. I suggest, if you want to keep this article, you actively seek, and add, independent sources that cover him. For example, a story in a newspaper about him as the primary topic. --Rob (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's unusual that you provide no conflicting information or deny that he is the President of the Alberta Liberal Party - a noteworthy position whether you personally deem it to be or not. His photo is in the national newspaper for his work as the President of the Alberta Liberal Party and the article contains independant news sources and referenced his charity work. If there is something factually incorrect, please provide proof.User:Vinsher —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- It's the other way around. Those wishing inclusion must provide proof of notability. You need to provide independent reliable sources that show substantial coverage of the subject. All the claims in the article need appropriate citations. Sites connected to the subject aren't considered independent, and therefore, not reliable. If he's been covered by a national newspaper, or anywhere independent and reliable, please include citations in the article. According to the general notability guideline passing mention is not sufficient to establish notability. The National Post article said nothing about him; it was just a photo of him standing in the background. The FFWD article makes minimal mention of him, as the article was principally about David Swann. --Rob (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's fine. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep - Sourcing sucks and article should use his last name, not his familiar first. Notable as head of the Liberal Party in the province of Alberta (evidence). Encyclopedias NEED this sort of information. Carrite (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, he is *NOT* the head of the party. He is the president. David Swann is the leader (for the moment), and therefore the true head of the party. The leader is the most powerful and significant person in the party, both inside and outside of the Legislature. The leader is a essentially a candidate for being premiere in any election, normally sits in the legislature, or seeks to. The president holds an administrative task, that is legal and clerical in nature. The president does not hold nor seek any public office. They have no special legal powers. If they appear in the media, it's as mere spokesperson for the party. --Rob (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Carrite. –SJ + 18:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Rob points out, the president of Canadian provincial party is not a leadership position, but an administrative one. I would be very hard pressed to name the president of the prov. party I vote for. As such, we need significant coverage in secondary sources, which we don't have and I could not find. The sourcing doesn't meet WP:BASIC, and it may not in the future. Of course, Mr. Ambtman may go on to bigger things, but doesn't meet the bar at this point. As a side note, this article also stinks of self-promotion. The Interior (Talk) 20:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of party presidents at the provincial level in Canada don't have their own articles, and notability on Wikipedia is a matter of substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not a matter of just being able to prove that he exists by pointing to a few passing mentions of his name in coverage of other things. And furthermore, I've never known Rob to harbour any particular bias against the Alberta Liberal Party — in fact, while I could be wrong, I always thought he was a member of it (and whether he actually is or not, the fact that I had that perception at all certainly proves that he doesn't harbour any obvious bias against them.) What I have known him to be, rather, is a strong and persuasive advocate of respecting and following Wikipedia's notability and inclusion policies regardless of what party a political figure is or isn't associated with. Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete president of a party is very inside baseball, not a spokesperson or public figure in Canada. Unless notable for something else, we shouldn't have articles on provincial party presidents. - Pictureprovince (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article reads like a resumé. DOn't think political apparatchiks rate their own articles. Not notable otherwise. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Listed for almost a month with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but of the 2 "keep" !votes one says the parent subject is notable and the other is a WP:ITSNOTABLE vague wave. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dia de Los Dangerous!

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

This article has no sources, contains in plot-only description, and it fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 00:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Venture bro's is notable. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep, notable enough.
- Comment if the article fails our guidelines including WP:GNG, WP:EPISODE and WP:PLOT, most of the Venture Brps. episodes are not notable. JJ98 (Talk) 01:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:34, 3 April 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 Transformers. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smallest Transformers

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

An article with poor "sources" to support its questionable notbility. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the article says is that these toys exist. The lack of assertion of notability along with the lack of secondary sources makes the article not WP material. Better leave the info where it is, on a Transformers collectors' site. Wolfview (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to a toy list of Transformers lines. This was a Japanese only series, but a popular one there. Mathewignash (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge per Mathewwignash. Popular line in Japan. Stickee (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless the claim of Japanese popularity can be attested through reliable sources. I did a cursory look and didn't find any coverage in independent reliable media. HominidMachinae (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I can find no reliable sources on this topic, just a bunch of Transformers wikis and fansites. It's all well and good to claim it was "popular", but that doesn't mean much when nobody can find any reviews or significant coverage. Reyk _YO! 22:45, 7 April 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. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Robot Powered Machines

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

An article with no sources to support its notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The user who started this discussion clearly doesn't understand what factors are important for an AfD, and also which criteria should be followed, which polices and guidelines should be mentioned and which one shouldn't. With an edition this article could be well sourced, well written and could meet several policies required even for a good article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not a personal attack, also not a non-courtesy comment, I noticed how he nominated some articles, and to address these details to this discussion would be relevant to its conclusion. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This article contains no sources and consists of nothing but trivia. Notability requirements are not met. I notice someone has suggested a merge but this is not appropriate because a) there is no usable content to salvage, and b) the obvious merge target is already full of pointless junk and would not benefit from having more. The Keep vote above is invalid because it focuses on the character of the nominator and not the substance of his argument, which in this case is 100% correct. Reyk _YO! 22:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eduemoni. Not really any valid reason for deletion. Stickee (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is "There are no sources to be found" not a valid reason for deletion? Reyk _YO! 22:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In this case, the lack of sources is of more concern than usual. I note that the article's creator was blocked indefinitely for disruptive edits and vandalism [7], which makes me question the statements made in this article. The alternative is to assume that the author has all of these in a toy box and wrote the page from the backs of the packages. It's had the unreferenced tag on it for more than a year; and I don't see that anyone here, myself included, wants to fix that. Like ReykYO, I think that WP:V is a pretty valid reason for deletion. Mandsford 15:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is there a bot that creates endless trival transformer articles? There are no refs. Szzuk (talk) 21:33, 4 April 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. Jujutacular ^talk 14:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Masterpiece

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

An article with poor "sources" to support its questionable notbility. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the article doesn't mention it, but ToyFare magazine called Msterpiece Optimus Prime the best toy ever. (The llink seems dead, though.) However, I don't know if that actually counts for anything much. NotARealWord (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only assume then that you will be removing the Transformers: Alternators article, Transformers: Alternity, Transformers: Universe and so on, because it has the exact same notability as all of those. If it's insufficiently sourced, then LABEL IT SO. Do NOT misuse deletion if you do not understand what it means. BTW, ToyFare's Best Toy Ever is mentioned.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even though not sourced, this is not a reason to delete, with a search through the internet I could find enough notability for these toy line. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its been long established that sources such as these [8] aren't independent or reliable and in all this time nobody has produced reliable or independent sources to prove otherwise to support this continuation of keeping this article. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the topic of this article (note the name, take it literally) I'm leanin' more towards keep since I'm guessing that it's just a victim of bad writing/editing. However, I'm afraid that it'll just stay bad if it's kept. NotARealWord (talk) 06:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eduemoni. Referenced non-trivially in magazines. Stickee (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Autobots. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Volt (Transformers)

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

An article with no sources to support its notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was a malformed ref tag in the article, which I've corrected. Is there anything more specific than List of Autobots for this to be merged to? Really, at this point in the Transformers cleanup, an experienced nom should have a merge target identified... Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be an article called Laser Rods, which was about the sub group of Transformers that Volt belonged to, but it got deleted by the same people now trying to delete Volt. It would have made more sense to merge all the Laser Rod characters into a single article at Laser Rods, then deleting it. Mathewignash (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sources to WP:verify notability. Would not object to userfying it, so maybe a quality list could be created at a later date. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I would also support a merge if it will produce a consensus, although deletion still seems more appropriate to me. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Autobots. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Autobots or another Transformers list that's more specific, per nom. Harry Blue5 (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Prime (Transformers). Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Nova

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

An article with sources from long discredited websites to support its notability Dwanyewest (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Prime (Transformers), as it's about this character and others. Mathewignash (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Prime (Transformers) per User:Mathewignash. JIP | Talk 10:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for sake of building a consensus. No sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jew

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

Photographer of doubtful notability, sources all seem like local business/PR pieces. Also, article is written like an ad. Author removed my advert and notability tags without explanation. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I tried to read this, but the spam was asphyxiating. Example: he was also given the distinct honor of photographing North America’s largest concave fresco. -- Hoary (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Kim Jew Wikipedia entry does not have any issues that would make it a candidate for deletion. The article uses a variety of sources, both within the state of New Mexico and throughout the United States. The sources cited are not PR pieces, but legitimate news stories crafted by journalists, not Kim Jew himself. The breadth of sources shows that there is significant coverage of Kim Jew as a photographer; the sources of publication show that they are reliable; the sources of publication are written from a third party perspective—they are not written by Kim Jew; the sources are independent of the subject. Based on this criteria, I believe that the Wikipedia entry about Kim Jew should be presumed suitable for inclusion. Additionally, Kim Jew’s notability spans decades…the independent coverage cited is not short-term interest. As far as being given the distinct honor of photographing North America's largest concave fresco....as the official photographer, that is an honor. Of course anybody can go and photograph it now...but Kim Jew was hired as the official photographer of this notable work of art. Not to mention that he has photographed 4 US presidents, many celebrities, famous politicians and has had his work featured in a variety of national publications. I understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion…and this entry does not read as such. It is not advocating people to take an action, it is not an opinion piece; it is written from a neutral point of view, and it is written in an objective style….stating facts about Kim Jew’s life and notable contributions to the field of photography....all of which can be and are documented. And NawlinWiki, I apologize for posting on your wall...and thank you for pointing me to the proper place to have this discussion....truly, I was not aware that I was committing a faux pas by posting there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredniferitz (talk • contribs) 21:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have made changes to the tone of the entry to what I think you might be referring to as "advertising." I did not intend for this to be an advertisement for Kim Jew or the work he does. I think his contributions through photography are notable and deserving of an encyclopedic entry. I felt I’ve obtained a fair amount of references to any claims that are made in the article. If there are any other specifics that I am overlooking please point them out and I’ll do what I can to make the adjustments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almondentyte (talk • contribs) 22:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions. The article tells us: Some of the notable subjects of Jew’s work include former U.S. Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, as well as President Barack Obama, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Sir Richard Branson, Jay Leno, Dana Carvey, Sophia Loren, Tony Bennett, Miss USA Mai Shanley, and the late Tim Russert. But all of this is sourced to KJ's website. I shouldn't have thought that havving photographed (non-Prez) celebs confers any significance, since they're photographed all the time. Presidents are a bit different though. So where's the independent evidence for this? ¶ Have there been books or exhibitions of KJ's work? -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Thank you for your feedback. I think it's different when the non-Prez celebs are commissioning the work (instead of pics on a red carpet or paparrazi shots), but I'm not sure. The presidential photographs he has taken, they were commissioned by both the Republican and Democratic parties. After the photo shoot, they were given digital files, but I do not know how or where they were published. I think his website is evidence of his body of work, which includes presidents and celebrities; if he were claiming the work of another, he would be facing huge legal implications. Also, I have taken out some other information in the entry that might be seen as trying to advertise and added some information to help clarify things. Please tell me what I should do from this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almondentyte (talk • contribs) 22:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete as commercial spam. Carrite (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can you please tell me why you think this is commercial spam and what I can do to fix it? I really am not trying to create a spammy entry, but an entry that explains the large role Kim Jew has had (and continues to have) in the world of photography. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almondentyte (talk • contribs) 20:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, seems clean enough now. Stricken. Carrite (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Outside his website, I'm unable to source the presidential (4) & governors of New Mexico (6) to any WP:RS source, but I don't doubt it; the photos are there, and I was unable to match them elsewhere. If untrue... WP:NLT. Assuming WP:V, it justifies the article of a photographer near the pinnacle of the profession, and I'm hard pressed to think what would top it other than Adams, Audobon, Brady, the photography Pulitzer, or official White House photographer. I'm surprised that Category:Presidential photographers doesn't exist. (belated signing) Dru of Id (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 3 "keep" !votes but one is a "per nom" and the other is in Swedish and the google translation of it is not a "keep" rationale. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Edelstam

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

Not notable.There are three references. One of them is a report that some grandchildren of Harald Edelstam had been introduced to the president of Chile in honour of Harald Edelstam - there is no suggestion in that article that Caroline Edelstam Molin has nay notability in her own right. Another reference is an announcement by AMREF that she had been appointed to a post by them. The other one is a very brief mention of the same appointment, which actually refers to the organisation she was appointed by as "the almost unknown organization AMREF Flying Doctors". Nothing at all indicates notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seem to have had some success for herself. References exist. I say Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Molin förlita sig på sin egen kreativitet och övertalningsförmåga och organisationen har därför lyckats --MoonLichen (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Care to translate that? While sources don't have to be in English, a comment in an AfD should be if you want it to have any practical effect within the decision. LadyofShalott 00:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Babba. –SJ + 18:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Schutzler

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

Cleaned up but not sure if subject fits notability criteria. Seems the only possible claim is being CEO of Livemocha, but does that entitle the subject to a separate article? Also, unsure of reliablity of sources. LordVetinari (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As well as being CEO of Livemocha, he is the former CEO of Classmates.com, and a former senior executive of RealNetworks and Monster.com. He's been interviewed by reliable sources on business and technology issues many times. His variety and depth of business experience make him notable. Cullen328 (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I think Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#No inherited notability answers that. I also question whether the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant a separate article. If a person is not notable outside the scope of an organisation, should they have an article outside the scope of that organisation? LordVetinari (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I've ref'd some of this, although the CEOsherpa main page may not be independent, and someone else should remove citation tags after reviewing as I'm still new at this ;). Some details I've left commented out pending verification/further developments (e.g., full book citation). Are Amazon.com author bios WP:RS? Dru of Id (talk) 21:34, 2 April 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. postdlf (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pikachu Day

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

"Worldwide" day that according to the article talk page is celebrated by a group of people on Twitter. No other evidence of notability. role^player 02:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for things that you or your friends made up. Surprised you withdrew your speedy nom. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It turned out to not be a hoax after all, which is what I claimed it was in my nom. Might have made speedy under another criteria, but not that one. -- role^player 03:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find any sources to establish notability. Shanata (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nomination statement, if it is "unofficial" there needs to be some independent coverage of it, and the unsourced article does nothing to address that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Sisley

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

Potentially non-notable minor league baseball figure. As far as I can tell, he never played that level and his only claim to fame is leading a team to a league championship. Alex (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Or merge, if there's anything to merge, to Uniontown Coal Barons. A championship-winning minor league manager certainly could be notable, if there's some coverage about him in reliable sources. Standard practice here is not to keep minor leaguers without such coverage. All I have found about Frank Sisley is reference material stating that he managed those teams.[9] This information, and its sources, can be included in the team article. Not sure that there's anything much to merge, though, since the key information (that he managed them to the 1909 championship) is already there.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Solaris (comics) and deleting history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pancosmic Justice Jihad

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

Contested PROD. Pure plot summary given from an in-universe perspective. Feezo (Talk) 06:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could be respectable if cleaned up and some sources added --MoonLichen (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Per WP:RS, and WP:N. Monterey Bay (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources exist to WP:verify notability. Safe to say this article cannot be improved. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - i don't think that this is even a real comic book series. I can't find anything about it online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.225.218 (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Postage stamps and postal history of Papua New Guinea. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Dagora

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

Appears to be a biography of a subject only notable for one event. No reliable sources that subject is dead, so treating as living by default based on birthdate. At any rate, appears to fail WP:GNG given that the only coverage is that the individual was the subject of a stamp, which is not significant coverage. SDY (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. One editor suggested merging it to Postage_stamps_and_postal_history_of_Papua_New_Guinea#New_illustrated_series_of_George_V_and_George_VI_reigns, but it's already mentioned there and there is little content to merge that isn't already present. SDY (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth considering retaining this page as a redirect to the linked article about the stamps of Papua New Guinea. SDY (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails WP:BLP1E with no apparent WP:RS after a long search. ww2censor (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Inclusion in a series of stamps is a likely indication that this person is important and thus likely to have gotten significant coverage for other matters. Such sources are far more likely to be in print than online — since such print sources are far more likely to be in Papua New Guinea than elsewhere, and since Papua New Guinea isn't exactly accessible to me, I have no way to prove this assertion, and thus I'll not say "keep". However, I strongly suspect that sufficient reliable sources exist to demonstrate notability. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the content that's available, it's possible that his father was a notable individual. He was the subject of the stamp at the age of 13, and the purpose of the series of stamps was just to document life in Papua New Guinea. I agree that most people who are put on stamps are notable, but this appears to be an exception. SDY (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: That this person is on a stamp for his jurisdiction is sufficient to establish this person's notability. Anyone who sees this stamp may very well ask the question, "Who is this?" All the more reason to have information about someone as obscure as Dagora. Those who allege that no reliable source is provided fail to explain why they consider the cited 1954 magazine article to be unreliable. It is highly unlikely that this humble individual is still alive at age 92 (or 89) in an underdeveloped jungle country. I remember reading something about his having died in the 1960s, but even I do not propose including that in the article without some reference. Eclecticology (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if dead, WP:BIO1E also expresses doubts about "one hit wonder" individuals. Given that the individual stamp is not notable^{[citation needed]}, I find it hard to believe that the picture of the stamp (absent any other evidence of notability) is a reasonable article. SDY (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW George V's youngest son died at age 13. What did he do that was notable? He was on a stamp. Why hold a Papuan to a higher standard than a Brit? Eclecticology (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A potential heir to an ancient monarchy is a second notable quality even if it was something that he was born into rather than something that he did. I don't think these are apples and apples. SDY (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm a little confused about why this keeps getting relisted. There are two !votes to delete, one general comment guessing that there might be sources but doesn't address the reason for deletion (i.e. WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E), and a keep vote that doesn't address the reason for deletion. Is there something I'm missing? SDY (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blatant lie to say that the make-believe reasons for deletion have not been addressed. Eclecticology (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of a second event or persistent coverage. Being put on a stamp is not a major event in and of itself, and it could be argued that his role in it was not a significant one in that he just happened to be chosen as the subject of a stamp. Unless there's some indication that he was chosen for a specific reason (one comment at WP:STAMPS suggested it might have been a political favor to a well-connected family though we have no evidence of this), he appears to be an "everyman" selected specifically because he was a good representation of the average guy. SDY (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge/Redirect as below. The issuance of the stamp got coverage at the time on two continents from reliable sources (see the three sources I've added to the article, leaving out another reference from the Hartford Courant). I grant that there is an argument that this doesn't reach GNG, I differ, I think it's quite remarkable that we have several on-line sources from the 1930s. ~~I also suspect that the term "son of Oala" has a specific meaning indicating secondary notability, but it may just be a reference to his father's name, hard to say.~~ As to BLP1E, well, I have no problem with renaming/merging this to an article on the stamp or stamp series (see the "see also" I've added), if folks insist, since that would be in accordance with BLP1E, but I think that that's unnecessary given the primary reason we have BLP1E. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, it appears that son of Oala is a reference to Steve being the son of Chief Oala of Hanuabada, so "son of Oala" is not, as I previously surmised, idiomatic. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2: I should have said this, because it is relevant: I take the offline source, and the commentary on the article's talk page as to the contents of said article on good faith, as part of my reasoning. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note 3: The stamp series article section linked suggests there is some coverage at "Richard Breckon, "The Stamps of Papua 1932-1941", Gibbons Stamp Monthly, December 2008, pages 68-71.", which I do not have access to. That source is used to reference a claim that Steve served as a public servant, but it's impossible to say without access whether the source goes into greater detail. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'd be more comfortable with an article about the stamp or the series of stamps, since it seems that many of the sources address them as a group. Speculating and stretching sources about personal details doesn't seem appropriate. There are a lot of appropriate merge or rename articles that some of this material could be moved to. Honestly, I think the coverage at the main article covers what needs to be said, and a separate article is just not warranted, because this article is unlikely to ever cease being a stub or an orphan. SDY (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't mind that merge. (I would personally be tempted to merge in the completion of his father being a chief more than anything else, and if we keep the redirect we should probably merge in Steve's last name, but that's at most a few words plus any relevant referencing, and that's a content issue.) You have a good point that some of the other material feels, well, coatracked, as I come back to this discussion. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Postage stamps and postal history of Papua New Guinea, per Joe Decker, as the issuance of the stamp got coverage at the time but Dagora himself pretty clearly falls under WP:BIO1E. Eclecticology, when the content is merged, a redirect will be left behind; anyone searching for "Steve Dagora" will end up at the relevant section of the Papuan postal history article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So tell me of one other person who has been identifiably featured on a stamp, and who has not had an article an article allowed. I've addressed Dagora's notability, and all I get in response is a link to wiki-lawyering baffle gab, which merely provides excuses for someone's deletionist agenda. Yet this same segment has no problem with Rodney King's notability, and his only claim to fame is that he got beat up by police. Lots of other people have been beaten up by police, but many fewer people have appeared on stamps. I'm not arguing to delete the King article. Dagora has other disadvantages. The King incident was in 1991; Dagora appeared 60 years earlier. King came into prominence in an urban environment with lots of press around; Dagora was from a rural village where they may never have heard of newspapers. King was American; Dagora was from a third world colony where Americans seem to feel that anything is invalid when it does not meet their self-appointed standards. I have tracked down and today ordered a 1972 Encyclopedia of PNG in 3 volumes; it will hopefully have something on Dagora, but it will be at least two weeks before it's in my hands. I would suggest to you wiki-lawyers tha this is a good time to apply IAR. Eclecticology (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all, I don't think comparing Dagora to Rodney King makes much sense. Yes, King's only claim to fame is that he was beaten up by police. That said, his beating was the subject of intense media coverage over an extended period of time, and it led to the 1992 LA riots, a fairly significant event in American history. Dagora, on the other hand, was a farmer and mechanic whose only supposed notability is derived from his being on a postage stamp. These aren't similar cases at all.
    You ask me to name "one other person who has been identifiably featured on a stamp, and who has not had an article allowed." You're making a somewhat fallacious argument. Most people on stamps are notable, certainly, but most of those people were featured on stamps precisely because they were notable beforehand.
    I think you're spot on when you decry Wikipedia's notability standards for being partial to Americans and other citizens of developed countries. Press coverage can be shown for these sorts of people (that is, people notable for one event) much more easily if the event occurred in a developed nation. If Dagora was put on a stamp in the United States, I'm sure he would have generated enough press coverage to have a Wikipedia article. To put it bluntly, this double standard sucks. Unfortunately, it's the one we work under. I'd be open to ignoring the notability guideline in this case, if you can provide a good reason to do so.
    As a final note, part of the reason I am, in this case, advocating a merger rather than deletion is that it would be easily reversible. I'm interested to hear what the Encyclopedia of PNG has on Dagora, and perhaps the information in that encyclopedia would be sufficient to split this article back out of the postal history article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:08, 13 April 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) 00:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick M. Walsh Jr.

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

Nothing in the article really indicates that this person meets notability guidelines, just that he's a working actor/stuntman/CEO. Nothing illuminating on his IMDb profile. I can't find any significant coverage of him in reliable sources (although plenty of coverage of someone by the same name), all I can see is social networking/marketing profiles. Beloved Freak 09:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 10:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 10:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stuntman with a few acting roles which appear to be very small, unnamed parts (corrections officer, homeless man, cop #1, etc.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet our minimal standards of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was dabify. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veridian

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

A dabbish sort of page listing a whole bunch of unnotable companies. The defence firm and the electric utility might be marginally notable. Miracle Pen (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a disambiguation page and spin off stub articles (at a minimum) for Veridian Corporation (United States) and Veridian Corporation (Canada). The U.S. company (see [10] and [11]) was a large (it sold in 2003 for $1.5 billion) and complex publicly traded company that did a lot of business with the U.S. defense establishment (see [12] and [13]) and figures in some people's conspiracy theories (e.g., [14] and [15]). --Orlady (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convert per Orlady. Three companies merit or have an article.
Convert & spinoff per Orlady. Veridian the defense contractor was a significant company: tons of likely references at Google News[16] and Google Books [17] that can be used to expand the spinoffs.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra K. Clarke

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

Biography of small town entrepreneur. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable as a prominent Canadian entrepreneur, links have been added as sources. MagikDragon

Badly written but maybe (has awards), maybe not (obscure). Forgotpassword321 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the awards; they appear weak to me. Stevie, IMA and Enterprising Women seem to be characterised by the very large numbers of listed "winners" and "finalists", to the extent that for me they border on PR fodder scam. I'm not impressed by position 96 on someone's list of canadian women entrepreneurs. There's no clarity about her association with the various space societies; she might, for all we know, be a member of them. That's not notable, and right now they lend nothing to the claim of notability. There's also a non-specific indication of printed syndication of what might be thought of as a blog. The article rings enough of my "using wikipedia as an additional promotional tool" bells and way too few notability bells. Right now, I'd delete it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that they are "weak" awards. A couple of minutes' reading will show you that the Stevies are quite well known, and that other winners there were execs from places like iRobot and Accenture, so not small potatoes. The presenters for that year's awards were Cheryl Casone of Fox business news and Carolyn Kepcher, formerly of the Trump Organization. I'd have sourced this picture for the article http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevieawards/4101751451/in/set-72157622801324898/, but it's not public domain. As for 'someone's list' - the list in question is a national ranking by Canada's leading business magazine. MagikDragon

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think as the article now stands there is a strong enough claim of notability. The awards are diverse, and both national and international, I think that should be enough for WP:BIO. Monty₈₄₅ 03:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no doubt an awesome entrepreneur, but sourcing is just not there. best of luck to you, chandra.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Raymond E. Feist#Chaoswar Saga. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Kingdom Besieged

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

No claims in the article or the website of the publisher demonstrate that this book meets the WP:BK criteria. No matches in GBooks, GNews or initial results of a general Google search to indicate significance against any of the BK criteria so improvement in the near future seems unlikely. PROD removed without explanation by anon IP (apart from the comment "take it to AFD"), so raising for wider discussion as suggested. Fæ (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Raymond_E._Feist#Chaoswar_Saga until such time as it's suitable for a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. I do not see that merging the plot/storyline would add anything useful to the target article. - Sitush (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Orullian

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 4. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per lack of reliable, independent, and verifiable sources to indicate notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article might have been created a bit prematurely, but there's a reasonable amount of online sourcing (albeit less than optimal) and several strong indicators of notability: a book tour sponsored by a major publisher [18], nontrivial reviews of prior work [19], and selection by the Science Fiction Book Club [20] (which doesn't so much contribute to notability as demonstrate it exists; after spotchecking, it seems that everybody they publish has a Wikipedia article). Well past the WP:CRYSTAL stage, better to keep and build up as the book hits than delete and restart within weeks. We've got articles on TV episodes that won't air until about the time the book is out. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He does not meet the notability criteria right now. He may in the future, so the future is when the article should be created. An alternative is to userfy the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the guy has a bunch of books published --MoonLichen (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - He does not have a bunch of books published. He has one published, and one set to release. Having a bunch of books published does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is listed as a bestselling author by the New York Times. He has been interviewed by a number of websites and blogs as an author and separately as a singer. He easily meets General Notability. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Do you have a citation for being a best selling author? I'd be rather surprised as he has only one released book, and it wasn't a best seller as far as I can determine. And being interviwed in blogs doesn't establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response. We need to be careful about mechanically applying standards like "blog coverage doesn't establish notability" in fields like f/sf, which have a long and recognized tradition of "amateur" publishing by professional writers and recognized commentators. Coverage in John Scalzi's blog, for example, (Scalzi is president of SFWA) probably would contribute to notability. More generally, while blog coverage can't normally be used to source biographical details, especially in BLPs, it can be used to demonstrate peer recognition/reputation under WP:CREATIVE, which quite clearly would demonstrate notability. We have to be careful, of course, about walled gardens, indiscriminate backpatting, and purely promotional comments about friends, but that's routine editorial judgment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jonny Quest. MoonLichen's comment is discounted because it makes no sense. Sandstein 07:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Zin

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

This article is completely unreferenced, it has no sources to establish the notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. JJ98 (Talk) 01:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just because something is in a cartoon doesn't mean it's not real --MoonLichen (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: If it fails our guidelines, especially that one notability, it should be deleted regardless of its reality.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Information should be included into the main Johnny Quest article. Also the article reads poorly Zin is the first word in every paragraph. With some work it would make a good addition to the main JQ article. Golgofrinchian (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Golg. –SJ + 18:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think these articles just got deleted because there was no one to contest them who was better at finding sources than the Deletors. I am not even going to bother showing you the sources; they are there. You do some work for a change. I already added two Google Books sources to the article, there are literally (and I do not use that word lightly) scores of references in the Google News links above, for both the Dr Zin of the 1960s Jonny Quest series (sources going back to 1964 and 1965), and his appearances in the series and movies that followed. Anarchangel (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Golgofrinchian, unless sources to establish notability can be found. Harry Blue5 (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you would rather rest on assertions than check to see if they are well-founded? Suits me. Here are some more sources:

Dr. Zin Comic Book Database

Dr. Zin - Chronological Listing Comic Book Database

Saturday morning fever, pages 113-116, MacMillan

The supervillain book: the evil side of comics and Hollywood, Visible Ink Press, 2006

We gotta have it:twenty years of seeing Black at the movies, 1986-2006, Esther Iverem, Thunder's Mouth Press, 2007 - Performing Arts

Dr. Zin (Character) from "The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest" (1996), Internet Movie Database

'60s Hero Goes Back To Future Nov 19, 1995, Scott Moore, Washington Post]

VOICES OF Dr. Zin behindthevoiceactors.com

Articles in the Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek - November 17, 1995 - E08 News

She's racing for her Quest Tampa Tribune

Jorge Luiz Calife ‘Homem de Ferro 2’ chega ao Brasil antes dos EUA. diariodovale

Anarchangel (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fuse TV. Jujutacular ^talk 14:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Noise

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

Unreferences, 2 lines of information. Intoronto1125 (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is some notability there, however, the article needs some serious work. It needs to have a better lead in and a whole lot more data. If the author cannot get it up to speed by the time the nomination runs out then I recommend Delete Golgofrinchian (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I'm inclined to say that this is hardly a notable program. A 2 minute show about basic music news on a channel that specializes in music? It seems like we're writing an article about one small portion of a rather large pot. I say redirect the information to page for the channel FUSE, as "The Daily Noise" is a searchable term. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Bignole, I guess. Depends on whether sources such as Billboard and Billboard's Fuse itself are acceptable; there are lots of those in Google News. All I could find for sources from other sources was a page showing Billboard on Google Books. Anarchangel (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn C. Phillips}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Duggan}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SIMPLEBOTICS}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G.I.D}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig gang}}