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

The result was : Speedily deleted by Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs)

Woodland disease[edit]

Woodland disease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

There are no sources for this article, and, given this, I feel the article is likely to be a hoax. An internet search on the subject turned up nothing, and I feel this article should be deleted. Immunize (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• delete While the disease really does exist (4 hits from the news link above), but none of those support the claims in this article.--RadioFan (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Blatant hoax/nonsense. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. In the news results the phrase "woodland disease" isn't a proper name, but just means "a disease that occurs in the woodlands". And it's a pathogen which attacks trees and obviously can't infect people. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The creator has now added additional false information into this article, which further makes me feel that this article should be deleted. However, should you really have tagged this for speedy deletion when it is already at AfD? Immunize (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An speedy deletion tag can certainly be added to the article. If an admin feels that it meets speedy deletion guidelines, they will close this AFD out when they delete the article.--RadioFan (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - real disease, hoax article. This is available to delete speedily as an incoherent mess and vandalism, which should be re-created later to make a real article. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2010 (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. Tone 18:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010 Pichilemu earthquake[edit]

May 2010 Pichilemu earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article seems be in violation of Wikipedia policy, namely WP:NOTNEWS. Terinjokes (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Justmeagain83 (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Being the first to discover a new earthquake is the Wikipedia equivalent of an astronomer being the first to discover a new star or asteroid, whereby one gets the credit and the naming rights. As with an airline incident, there's a template that can be filled out with all the info from the appropriate geological service. However, the measure of a quake on Wikipedia is whether it has historical notability, and on what I'd call the "Wikter scale", this one doesn't register. Mandsford (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above. Another articel about just another quake.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Mandsford; clearly NOTNEWS applies and there is no need for an article for each earthquake. Mikemoral♪♫ 05:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with above rationales. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:01, 5 May 2010 (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.  Sandstein  05:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C. Olivia Frost[edit]

C. Olivia Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I would use PROD, but I am on the fence. Does this BLP meet our standards for notability in academics? Tim1357 ^talk 23:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am not seeing any claim of notability. Article just describes her career, which seems to be heavy on the administrative side of things. Abductive (reasoning) 04:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not seem notable. Being a dean is not enough to pass WP:PROF, and I don't see much other reason for inclusion; having published a half a dozen articles in its own right is not enough. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - not named professor, but her record barely ranks her as a notable professor at a major university Bearian (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, insufficiently notable, and the reasoning given for the prod decline ("full professors at Michigan are essentially always notable") doesn't jibe with wp:prof. Hairhorn (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2010 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Babalj[edit]

Eli Babalj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod with reasoning that youth internationals are notable. This doesn't meet current community standards at WP:Athlete. A good faith search for significant coverage shows mostly trivial mentions and not enough coverage in my opinion to meet the notability guidelines. Camw (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Camw (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - per nominator. Having never played a professional match or for a senior national team means he fails WP:ATHLETE, and the absence of significant coverage means he also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 19:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG - recreate if / when meets either criteria Steve-Ho (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2010 (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. Tone 18:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Morton[edit]

Bradley Morton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non notable schoolboy footballer. No indication of meeting WP:ATHLETE noq (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - never made it in the professional game. Proof positive that success is by no means guaranteed for all these allegedly hyper-talented kids who regularly pop up on the web.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS looking at the history, article is also a very obvious autobiog -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (after 2 edit conflicts :-) per nom. Struway2 (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kosack (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. This player clearly fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. copyvio of their myspace page Nancy ^talk 12:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secouer records[edit]

Secouer records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

non notable label. Disputed prod. Unsourced, and spammy. noq (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Spam. Joe Chill (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as a copyvio from [1] -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meadowoods[edit]

Meadowoods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Spam for non-notable direct-to-video C-movie. Orange Mike | Talk 23:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • information - I've had to block, not only the initial spamusername, but a second sockpuppet created by the spammer. (I know, that's not an argument for deletion [or retention]; but I thought folks should know.) --Orange Mike | Talk 03:25, 6 May 2010 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NaviMate[edit]

NaviMate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod. Non-notable web browser - this search yields < 100 hits, not all of them relevant. Fails WP:N andy (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no indication of notability, nothing in a web search to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage about this browser in any reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I cannot find reliable sources for this one. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2010 (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 all four except Bhanbhro. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhanbhro[edit]

Bhanbhro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

These are all pretty much vanity pages created by SPA Rafay Bhanbhro -- well, actually, the first article wasn't created by him/her, but s/he made a great deal of edits on it. In any case, a Google search for the first article resulted in pages that only mention the subject in passing, and the rest of the articles' respective Ghits are only Wikipedia and mirrors. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhanbhra Welfare Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ghullam Farooq Bhanbhro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ghullam Farooque Bhanbhro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except Bhanbhro. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bhanbhro, delete the others. That one actually seems to have received quite a lot of independent coverage, and while the external links would be better as references they still seem to be just enough to meet WP:GNG. The others aren't even close. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2010 (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 deleted (CSD G7) by Athaenara. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 19:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Grey (footballer)[edit]

Matt Grey (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Speedy template removed. 17 games in the reserves at Crystal Palace, youth team player, now a scout at Bournemouth-I don't see an assertion of notability or a degree of coverage in reliable sources that meets our general notability guideline or a degree of independent reporting that could allow us to to create a decent, well cited biography of a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just don't see enough to write a biography from. --Joe Decker (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (That is, from reliable, verifiable, secondary sources.) --Joe Decker (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a start his name has been spelt wrong, Danny makes a good point there are many Footballers on wikipedia who have had the same type of career. I remember Matt Gray Playing at Southampton for Crystal Palace in their first team at a young age. He was considered the new Terry Butcher but injuries etc prevented his development. You could probably write a decent movie about his life from what I gather. R Mackie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.228.39 (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per criterion A7. There is no indication that this player meets our notability guidelines. – PeeJay 10:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peejay what do you have against Danny? R Mackie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.228.39 (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think I have anything against any particular editor? My only problem is with articles that fail to meet our notability guidelines, such as this one. – PeeJay 12:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:ATH, the community's most generous inclusion standard. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2010 (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 both. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Faerie Ring[edit]

A Faerie Ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is a combined nomination for a book and its author. The book fails WP:BK and the author fails WP:AUTHOR. I can find no independent coverage of either the book or the author. My PROD tag was removed but the issues were not addressed as the only reference added was the author's own website.

Related page (author's) also being nominated:

Michael Honeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- JLaTondre (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both no significant coverage found. book not available on amazon.ca, oddly enough. no prejudice towards recreation if a second, printed book appears with coverage.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. Michael Honeth's book is published by Honeth Publishing which would indicate it is self-published. I can find no significant coverage about the author or the book in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Not an Article  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 747/Image Gallery[edit]

Boeing 747/Image Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This orphaned article (only link is to Boeing 747) has no potential for expansion. It is just a collection of pictures. I believe that is what the Commons are for (a link is provided in the 747 article to an array of 747-related images). Furthermore, there are already plenty of images in the 747 article itself. I therefore see no useful purpose for this redundant article. Airplaneman ✈ 22:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A3, as this article has no content other than an image galley. I tagged the article accordingly. It looks like there were attempts in the past to transwiki the page to Commons, but there is already a Boeing 747 page there. –Grondemar 22:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm not calling for any of the contained images to be deleted, just the article. –Grondemar 22:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Photos are fine and might be of some use, but this just isn't an article -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This should be a category (here or at Commons, not a page. Speedy delete - The Bushranger (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2010 (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. Tone 18:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtue of laziness[edit]

Virtue of laziness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unsourced neologism used by one teacher in their classroom. ALI ^{nom nom} 21:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not an encyclopedia article either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO. (Article has alos COI problemes.) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia does not publish original thought. — Rankiri (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this original thought. Cliff smith ^talk 19:22, 7 May 2010 (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. Tone 18:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2008 New Britain Rock Cats season[edit]

2008 New Britain Rock Cats season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article was apparently created to highlight the 2008 season of the New Britain Rock Cats, a Minor League Baseball team from Connecticut. However, it was functionally abandoned approximately one-third through the season -- two years ago -- without the results of the rest of the season being imputed. There doesn't appear to be any need for this article about a single, non-notable season of a small Connecticut baseball team. In addition, there does not exist any articles for any of this team's other seasons, so this article about the 2008 season appears to serve no purpose as a standalone when there are none about any other seasons. Major League teams should have season-by-season articles because of their notability and reliable coverage, but not so much for non-noteworthy MiLB teams. Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. Also, that page doesn't use the 2008 roster. That's the current 2010 roster. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is pretty well what WP:NOTSTAT is about. Because of the lower bar that's set for fun articles, anyone can make their own personal sports page, but it takes a lot of effort to keep updating the page with each game result. It looks as if there's an entire category of Category:2008 Eastern League season with quite a few similarly incomplete articles. These can be enjoyable during the season, but they're trivia rather than history, and there probably should be a rule that these get folded into the league season article when the season ends. It doesn't take long to go from rah-rah-rah to blah-blah-blah. Mandsford (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone else. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ditto. Nothing to add but I want to be with the in-crowd. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.. And also delete all the other incomplete 2008 Eastern League season pages. Spanneraol (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2010 (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. WP:BLP1E. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zahia Dehar (call girl)[edit]

Zahia Dehar (call girl) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Although the facts of this article are verifiable, I believe that this article would fall under the guidelines of WP:BLP1E, and as the subject was a minor at the time of the event, I believe it is in the best interest of all involved that Wikipedia not be involved in the continuing recriminations from this event. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Has been in the news for only one event -- Boing! said Zebedee 21:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable outside of one event. ALI ^{nom nom} 22:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absolutely a case of BLP1E.
• Keep she ist famous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.21.115.19 (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC) — 77.21.115.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the article on this scandal. Which should be created. Baiter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Everybody in France knows her. -Harbelser (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC) — Harbelser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ALI ^{nom nom} 00:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. BLP1E certainly applies. Most of the article, as it stands, is actually about the one event and Franck Ribéry rather than Mlle. Dehar (Baiter is correct, the event deserves an article). She is only mentioned in one of the listed reliable sources, but none of that information is in the article. gNews search for her name returns articles about the turmoil in the French team, mostly focusing on Ribéry and mentioning her only in passing. Her appearance on some sort of French dating game type thing is non-notable. The title of the article is also a problem, on a number of levels. » scoops “ŧäłķ„ 17:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I've done some more research (en français)and see that Mlle. Dehar has done an interview in Paris Match[2], which may push her closer towards notability. I'm still not sold that she's relevant apart from the scandal, since that is the main focus of the interview, but it does offer us a reliable source about her; one that contradicts pretty much all the information given about her in our article. I'm still leaning towards delete, but if the article is kept, it absolutely needs to be moved to just Zahia Dehar. » scoops “対談„ 16:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, one event. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. NW (Talk) 03:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Battlefront III[edit]

Star Wars: Battlefront III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

fails WP:CRYSTAL Teenage Martyr (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's a rumor, but a bunch of reliable sources cover the rumor. Joe Chill (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plenty of significant coverage to pass WP:N from several reliable sources. Though I'm usually against having unreleased or canceled games kept, this one passes criteria. Not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL - the sources provide veracity. --Teancum (talk)
• Keep - even if the game is never to be released, it still would have plenty of reliable sourcing. Enough coverage in relaible secondary sources exists to verify the article's content and establish notability, side-stepping WP:CRYSTAL. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as the nom has been indef blocked for sock puppetry. [3] [4] --Tothwolf (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2010 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik (software)[edit]

Sputnik (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable wiki software. Despite its cool logo, there's no evidence that this software achieved any notability during its lifetime (apparently 2007-2009). It's only been used on a handful of (non-notable) wikis, and doesn't seem to have gotten any press mentions. It should be noted that this is not related to the company Sputnik at sputnik.com, which makes some sort of wi-fi hardware. Yaron K. (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I can't find any either. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WIthdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010 Tennessee floods[edit]

May 2010 Tennessee floods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The prod was contested. This flood fails WP:EVENT. Joe Chill (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand'. Major national coverage throughout the whole weekend - so clearly notable. I might understand that some of the content is in the April-May 2010 tornado outbreak but clearly this event merits its own entry. Though I would be only able to help with the article during the weekend though. --JForget 21:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC) 21:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'll close this AfD if someone will add sources to it. And I'm not trying to be a dick by saying that (a name that I have been called multiple times on here). Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added a couple of timely sources and a {{currentEvent}} tag. Hope it helps as this flood will become notable.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike Cline. I'll withdraw. Joe Chill (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2010 (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 per CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Play to extinction[edit]

Play to extinction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

As the creator of this article I have been contacted on Facebook by the primary source for this expression according to the article, Natasha Schull. She writes to me:

"The article characterizes “play to extinction” as a technique used within the gambling industry, which is inaccurate. I am the sole source for this phrase and I can assure you that I only heard it once or twice, used descriptively (i.e. to describe what happens when players run out of money at slot machines). It definitely isn't a "concept" or "strategy" or "practice" that is used or applied in any concerted way within the gambling industry, and thus makes no sense as a Wikipedia entry. The phrasing has such a sinister ring to it that journalists like to put it up front, but it just creates sensationalism and confusion. To be sure, the industry has plenty of creepy concepts and strategies (like "Time on Device" which is a standard term and would make a great Wikipedia page), but "play to extinction" is not one of them."

Based on this I nominate the article for deletion. meco (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - CSD criteria G7 allows a speedy deletion of a page if the only author requests deletion. I've tagged the page as such. --Darkwind (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2010 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portclare[edit]

Portclare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No established notability. No links to this article... User:Timneu22/moutray — Timneu22 · talk 19:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A manor such as this has some of the characteristics of a settlement, particularly if the people who worked on the manor also lived there. What was the population? I am inclined to think that the automatic notability of towns might apply here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps, but WP:ORPHAN ranks highly with me... if no one wants this article, that's my starting point for questionable notability. — Timneu22 · talk 21:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ORPHAN is not a criteria for deletion. Just because an article hasn't been linked to very often, which is especially true for new articles, doesn't diminish its notability at all. Silverseren^C 22:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand that's it's not an official reason for deletion, but when you have the same editor posting numerous articles and all are deleted because of the lack of notability, ORPHAN certainly becomes a factor in these articles: they were posted because he wanted them for his mission, not because they are requested or desired by the encyclopedic community. — Timneu22 · talk 22:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep regardless of the other articles and their manner of creation, Portclare appears to have been a real settlement/town and as such, should likely not be deleted. See this google search which turns up several sources which discuss it, its boundaries, population, etc. etc. --Jayron32 01:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per User:Jayron32. NtheP (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - almost all settlements have been kept after deletion discussions, and per my standards. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being in A topographical dictionary of Ireland is a definite plus. It is also covered in Counties Fermangh & Tyrone, and An historical account of the plantation in Ulster at the commencement of the seventeenth century, 1608-1620, and A statistical account, or parochial survey of Ireland: drawn up from the communications of the clergy, Volume 3, and Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, and many others. Historical notability seems quite assured. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:06, 8 May 2010 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Wiseman[edit]

Alex Wiseman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

CSD tags repeatedly removed. Non-notable person. GregJackP (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete completely unsourced BLP. no indication he is notable and nothing in searches to indicate this 15 year old might be notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No assertion of notability, and based on the scant material present, I can find no coverage about this Alex Wiseman. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, A7, or just plain delete. Hairhorn (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2010 (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. Akirn (talk) previously User:Icewedge 21:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moultrie Courthouse[edit]

Moultrie Courthouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Nothing notable about this building. User:Timneu22/moutray — Timneu22 · talk 19:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources already cited indicated in the article, and a cursory google search, turns up gobs of good info on the courthouse specifically. Regardless of the problems with other articles which may or may not have been created and/or edited by some editors, this one article appears to meet inclusion criteria with flying colors. --Jayron32 01:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jayron32. The article creator might have created some dogs for personal reasons, but that doesn't mean we have to delete inclusion-worthy articles like this one too.--Oakshade (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jayron32. NtheP (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jayron 32 and the obvious notability shown by the sources in the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - major Federal courthouses are almost always considered notable. In this case, a bad editor can make good edits; for "even a broken clock gives the correct time twice a day." Bearian (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per guideline supported arguments toward notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:44, 8 May 2010 (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 (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Franek[edit]

Ivan Franek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Claims of notability in this article cannot be verified. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well, they weren't verified, but lots of claims in the article can be verified, and I've added references that, in my opinion, establish that this is a notable actor. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn Drmies has done what I could not in finding sources about this actor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Dan. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2010 (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jokela High School[edit]

Jokela High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod. A 2007 school shooting occurred there, but the school just doesn't have enough significance. In short, this school is non-notable. Karppinen (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- I could be wrong on this, or consensus may have changed and I'm not aware of it, but as I understand it, high schools are considered to have an inherant notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Wikipedia:Notability_(high_schools).--Milowent (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the usual outcome. It would have notability even had there been no school shooting, in the same way that the little town (6,000) of Jokela in Finland would be notable. Certain features in places (schools, radio stations, etc.) tend to get articles separate from the town itself. As with Columbine High, there is more to the school than the tragedy that happened there. Mandsford (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sources are available to meet WP:ORG. Separately, high schools are significant enough in their communities to be kept. TerriersFan (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per long standing consensus, high schools are notable. Edward321 (talk)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Moutray[edit]

John Moutray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non notable Royal Navy captain of the Revolutionary War period. Only claim to fame is being court martialled. The details of the action which resulted in his court martial are covered in Action of 9 August 1780. NtheP (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Author has a history of using WP as his personal genealogy site; a number of his edits are currently under AFD or have already failed. — Timneu22 · talk 19:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Timneu22/moutray

listing of AfD seems to be borne out of personal animus for reasons unspecified and unclear. Removing this, and a whole lot of other pages must also be AfDd too on similar grounds. Perhaps, rather, and more constructively, retain, and suggest author places material on GlobalFamilyTree or suchlike. AfD is uncalled for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.117.129 (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC) — 41.132.117.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reply to 41.132.117.129 (talk · contribs): Please assume good faith on the part of the nominator. The reasons for the nomination are neither unspecified nor unclear; the subject of the Moutray2010's contributions has been exclusively limited to his own genealogy, and he has been duly informed of the problem. He is free to post the material on GlobalFamilyTree or any other website that is appropriate for such purposes; that does not alter the need for the material to be deleted from Wikipedia through this AfD process. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did start by seeing if there was an article to make out of the amount of material posted but then found there was already an article on the only noteworthy event posted about John Moutray so not it's not borne out of any dubious motive but simply non-notability. NtheP (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the original nomination: The Moultrie Courthouse is independently notable as a the home the the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The biographical information about its namesake has been removed as non-notable, but the building itself remains notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Moultrie Courthouse is notable and should be retained. NtheP (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability as laid out at WP:N and WP:BIO. Text in the article is fleshed out with descriptions of larger events he participated in; but it does not appear that his life itself has been the subject of substantial coverage. --Jayron32 05:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fairly obvious on this one for all the reasons listed above.Rapier (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup, it was easy to find references to the man, he was court marshaled in 1781 and a book of the proceeding has been in multiple printings as late as 1990. The creator of the article just needs more experience in the Wikipedia style of writing --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and send to Cleanup. Sourcable historical notability is most specially notable enough for en.Wikipedia. The article is sourced and more sources are available.[5] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - aware of the rearrangement of the text and new data, but it still does not make him notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  And how is it now that his being written of in historical tomes does not make him notable? It's not as if he received only a brief mention as a footnote in history... his actions had historical import. And though the events preceding and trial itself received attention at the time, let's not continue a debate that the court martial was the only thing for which history remembers this individual. For example, in Lord Nelson, 1758-1805: A Bibliography, it is related that Nelson himself had a dispute with him, when Moutray was Commissioner of the Navy at Antigua... and this was well before the court martial events. Sourcable and historical notability for at least a 40 year period in the 1700s is still historically notable today. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a book called "Court Martial of Captain John Moutray" that has gone through at least three printings, you are ipso facto notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not 'a book'; its the verbatim transcript of his court martial. As such, it's a primary source and not particularly useful in establishing notability. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

of Note : the nominator for deletion has said above , that he did so in a blanket manner . considering the time and effort involved in debating this topic , i consider the nominator has acted in a disruptive manner . 1. i propose that the request for deletion is removed , as it was without merit , and has been supported as Notable , if only for the Notoriety , ie the loss of £1 500 000 over 300 years ago , i think equates to about £5 billion in todays equivalent . it was the biggest loss in Europe at the time , and affected the Economy of Europe for the next 4 years . 2. The fact that it suggests Court Martial , ie that John Moutray was culpable , is misleading , since the History of the Royal Navy , an Authoritative source , contriuted by President Roosevelt , clarifies that this was a Scapegoating measure , to appease the Insurance industry . 3. if John Moutray was some nefarious character , why was he buried in Honour , at Bath Abbey . This doesnt happen to undesirables. i Think its not clear , and i wish to clarify , that the court martial happened when he was in his 30's , Sir John Moutray . He was still offered Honourable placements , indeed that of Commisioner of Antigua , and was a friend of Nelson . The oft quoted head to head with Nelson , when Moutray was the Commisioner , and Nelson was their first encounter . however Moutray didnt argue with Nelson , and complied with his request , and they ended up as friends . In fact , Nelson met Collingwood at Moutrays House in Antigua , and John and Mary Moutray were supportive and remained friends with Nelson and Collingwood throughout their lives , even to the extent that Moutrays Son John , was been looked up favourably by Nelson , who again honoured their son John with a Memorial , after Moutrays son John died in the Siege of Calvi. That so many died throughout the Ages fighting for their country is something notable , and worthy of recognition and inclusion . I am not happy to have this deleted on the basis of Non- Notability , and also presenting the actual facts is not a sign of bias , as its not something that has been dreamt up in my head, but i am providing factual information that is independently verifiable , for anyone who cares to look into the matter in more detail , so finding " the court martial of john Moutray' in a google search , does not represent the final word on John Moutray , who as i said this was in his 30's , he was apparently scapegoated , and if anything redeeded himself via his association and relationship with Nelson , and was ultimately honoured in Bath Abbey . no mean feat ( ie not every sailor was honoured in Bath Abbey .) i am not happy to have anything less stand , to misrepresent this mans life and contribution to our Nations history . Who knows where we would now be if Nelson had ,infact, hung himself?? in Conclusion , respect is called for, for this man , for historical fact , and truth . Hence the wish to provide more information to provide the wider picture and context . how can that be summed up in one sentence , adn to say he was not notable , is absurd . please feel free to edit / add / delete , but to say that he is not worthy of comment is ridiculous, and has no rationale , or basis for support for those who have considered the matter objectively . this request for deletion should be removed . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.194.202 (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note previous comment by IP address appears to be written in the style of User:Moutray2010. — Timneu22 · talk 10:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the Nominator of this AfD, I would now like to WITHDRAW my nomination. Having studied the revisions made by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) I agree that the necessary standard of notability is achieved for the article to stay. NtheP (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not so fast. There are still people posting delete remarks. — Timneu22 · talk 13:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Withdraw, either way I no longer support my own nomination. NtheP (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to meet our notability requirements (perhaps it didn't in the past, but it certainly meets those now). An honored naval sailor with a notable history with historical implications seems to meet the minima. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The references appear to either refer to this guy in passing or are either primary sources or database-type entries. As such, notability is not established. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The memorial in Bath is sufficient to demonstrate notability. Those are not idle rememberances.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The recent improvements make it clear that he is notable after all. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2010 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Araujo[edit]

Nino Araujo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article fails the general notability guideline as I have been unable to find any coverage of this person in reliable sources. Additionally, it is about a footballer who has never played in a fully-pro league or otherwise has an accomplishment which would be notable. An earlier PROD was contested, without a specific reason being given. Jogurney (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I thought it was a hoax when I did a search. Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Nothing to show notability in either a WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG sense. BigDom 19:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find any evidence that this player has ever played professionally or that he even exists for that matter. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - possible hoax; even if he does exist then he isn't notable by any stretch of the imagination. GiantSnowman 19:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - can't find any evidence of meeting WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2010 (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 Criticism of Windows Vista. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vistaster[edit]

Vistaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Neologism and not a very flattering one at that. — e. ripley\^talk 18:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another of those made-up words.... Referenced to a blog, and with no other evidence of use, I can't see much future for this. (Having said that, I share the opinion on Vista, but find the word too odd in pronunciation for it to catch on. Besides which, Vista is dying out rapidly, isn't it?) Peridon (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vista is dying out rapidly": how's that relvant here? See WP:NTEMP. Pcap ping 18:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep or merge with Windows Vista. Even Forbes uses it: [6]. Click the links above before voting, people! Pcap ping 17:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that that particularly matters. WP:NOT "a dictionary, usage, or jargon guide." WP:NEO gives some wiggle room for neologisms that are widely discussed in reliable sources, which Forbes is, but it's the only one and I don't think that's quite enough. — e. ripley\^talk 18:01, 4 May 2010

I did "click the links". I don't see widespread usage of the term. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your unfamiliar with non-English sources: Jornal de Notícias [7], Rádio e Televisão de Portugal [8], La Nacion [9], The Chosun Ilbo [10], 163.com [11] all used it. I would say that's enough to merge with the Vista article, at the very least. Pcap ping 18:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, changed !vote after reading wp:neo again. There's plenty of evidence for use, but not a lot about its origin or who popularized it. Pcap ping 18:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Criticism of Windows Vista.--PinkBull 21:13, 10 May 2010 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tickling boots[edit]

Tickling boots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Seems an unnotable subject (even with science fiction genre). Article is also unreferenced after all this time. Does anyone care about this?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Is this possibly WP:HOAX? — Timneu22 · talk 18:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete my searches come up with mirrors to this article, I did not find any significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Obscure trivia; I suspect that the stub includes all of the references available. There might be some minor good to keeping it in case some other author wants to use them and claim there is no possible prior reference, but that's all I can think of. htom (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is neither asserted nor shown. Edward321 (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2010 (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 Roses Tournament. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Roses Tournament[edit]

2008 Roses Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non Notable inter-university sports competition. Receives little or no coverage outside the two competing universities and as such fails WP:GNG. The article is totally un-sourced and as such this article fails the WP:V policy.

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roses Tournament Codf1977 (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Roses Tournament, an article which I think is less likely to be deleted. Mandsford (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Mandsford. Suggest procedural close of this AFD as it is heavily dependent on the other. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed with the merge into Roses Tournament, seems sensible Alex Muller 12:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2010 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henrietta Brooke-Carter[edit]

Henrietta Brooke-Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable hoax article lacking GHIt and GNEWS. Should be speedy deleted, but sockpuppet Love1down continues to remove valid {{db-hoax}} tags. ttonyb (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - an elaborate hoax article. Clubmarx (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete hoax and fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2010 (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.

Melville Amadeus Henry Douglas Heddle de La Caillemotte de Massue, 9th Marquis of Ruvigny and Raineval[edit]

The result of this discussion was keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Java to UML Sequence Diagram[edit]

Java to UML Sequence Diagram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Very unremarkable software with only a few Google hits, mostly to this article or to the software's website. Article written by the author of the software. Haakon (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - article is essentially there to promote the program. Claritas (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obvious promotion. — Timneu22 · talk 17:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: All that I can find is Sourceforge. Joe Chill (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. GregJackP (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2010 (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. And then redirect to Altamira.  Sandstein  05:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alta Mira[edit]

Alta Mira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable treatment center. The only news articles mentioning this facility I was able to identify are local interest stories about local opposition to the operation. ^Bongo_matic 16:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 18:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 18:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unable to find evidence that this facility passes WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be fine with a redirect, per Clarityfiend. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Altamira. The center's gotten a little bit of press coverage,[12][13][14] but not enough IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. A 48-bed rehab center without any significant notability. Thanks for the press links, Clarityfiend, but only one of them is to a reliable source - namely, the Marin Independent article saying that the center was operating without a city permit! And I'm afraid your proposed redirect makes no sense; it only goes to a DAB page, and none of the entries on the DAB page have anything to do with this center or with Sausalito. --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Perhaps the article should be refocused to cover the structure and include converge of the now-defunct hotel, which may be somewhat notable.[15]--PinkBull 21:20, 10 May 2010 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe Store[edit]

Shoe Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NF. Only source listed or found on a web search is IMDB, which is not sufficient to establish notability. Cptmurdok (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was a contested PROD. Cptmurdok (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks notability, and is horribly written. — Timneu22 · talk 17:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Timneu. (GregJackP (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete per WP:NF (and what is a "verbal comedy", anyway?). Erpert (let's talk about it) 23:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2010 (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. without prejudice to recreate if suitable reliable sources should be found at a future date. If the creator wants it userfied, contact me. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arachnode.net[edit]

Arachnode.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I'm not entirely sure that this article meets the notability criteria required for inclusion set out at WP:WEB and WP:N, although I've been sent an email by the creator setting out several reasons it might be notable. I'd appreciate input from the wider community, as my own mind is undecided and I'm not an expert on the subject. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What makes a page like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MnoGoSearch suitable for Wikipedia, but not arachnode.net? Both are crawlers, but mine is in a different language. What can I do to improve the article so that it may stay? :D 98.232.24.184 (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable. To the author - the easiest way to get the article to stay is to get people to write about it in notable publications. You're right about MnoGoSearch - that article could be a candidate for deletion as well. Yaron K. (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Well, thanks for restoring it so I could copy the markup.  :) Guess I will work on getting notable links to AN. If by chance, you have a change of heart it would be most appreciated. Mikeanderson12 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2010 (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.  Sandstein  05:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

911 nightclub fire[edit]

911 nightclub fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod. The article was previously prodded per WP:NOTNEWS and lack of enduring notability. Further search for sources did not reveal anything beyond the coverage of the event itself. —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 3, 2010; 15:34 (UTC) 15:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from article's author: at the time I wrote this, there was never any question of notability for this project. It was at a time hwere disasters were deemed inherently notable. Nowadays that is becoming less and less the case and I will be very interested to watch the debate. Whilst I keep in touch with Wikipedia's internal politics (so that I don't feel uncomfortable retaining my admin bits) another project (Wikinews) needs my main namespace contributions more and so I have lost touch with many of the consensuses relating to articles on various specialities. The subject received plenty of international coverage at the time but I have no idea how much follow-up there was in the media. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should just express an opinion. Consensus is shaped by your opinion, too. Everyking (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is true. Well, in my view it would be notable if there was significant international coverage in the months following (e.g. European, Middle-Eastern, American etc articles on the investigation, or any prosecutions etc) or lasting national impact (such as the example below of new regulations). I simply do not know if either were the case. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, plenty of press coverage. The article, which is about an event in Russia, is cited with a reference to BBC News—in other words, it was considered world news. Everyking (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – At this time. Sorry to say, fires of this type are quite common either due to poor safety regulations – carelessness or plain stupidity. The death toll was only nine individuals. While any loss of life, even one individual is tragic, this particular fire does not meet the current notability standards , and falls under One Event or Not News versus situations such as Cocoanut Grove fire or Iroquois Theatre Fire or The Station nightclub fire where notability thresholds were meet by coverage of the situation – outcomes to local and national code standards, based on these particular incidents, and the vast amount of both local and international coverage of the fires because of the death tolls. However, on the other hand, I could see a List collating fires of this type (Nightclub Fires) where this particular incident is mentioned. That is a project for an energetic individual. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is it your argument that notability is determined by the number of dead ("Only 9 people? Chicken feed. Run that death toll up into triple digits and then we can talk.") or that it is determined by the amount of attention received by the event? Given the fact that this fire was considered world news, I don't see how you can make the latter argument, but the former argument is absurd. Everyking (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ezhiki, but at same time per Shoessss, it could be mentioned in a list of some sorts. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 19:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Weak Delete. Appears not to have received any coverage outside of concurrent newspaper articles.--PinkBull 21:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it was in Russia; we don't have access to most of the sources. You don't think there was any follow up about a story like this? Everyking (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, but it assumes Russia has a culture of taking these mishaps seriously to the extent that the story stays notable for more then just the short-term. It's a valid assumption, but I'm not willing to take that jump due to the lack of support for that claim. I'll modify my vote for now pending an expansion of sourcing. --PinkBull 04:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete.

Moutray of Seafield and Roscobie, now of Favour Royal, Co. Tyrone: an Historical and Genealogical memoir of the family in Scotland, England, Ireland and America[edit]

Moutray of Seafield and Roscobie, now of Favour Royal, Co. Tyrone: an Historical and Genealogical memoir of the family in Scotland, England, Ireland and America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The lengthy title gives a few clues but its not clear what this article is about. Much of the text was copied from this webpage which might not be a copyvio due to the age of the work but does make make for a coherent article. No claim of notability either. RadioFan (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The title of the article appears to reference a book, but the article itself does not talk about the book. Rather it cites various information from the book in a somewhat disorganized manner. Cleanup is possible, but that would only leave an article that duplicates the contents of the book, which is not really a proper encyclopedia article. The book itself does not appear to be notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'd been about to propose same, after looking at this new article and also today's edits to the article on the town of Culross. In both cases, what's been added is effectively a genealogical scratchpad of a particular family name. That is useful in its place, but not, I think, for general Wikipedia articles. AllyD (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Melville Amadeus Henry Douglas Heddle de La Caillemotte de Massue, 9th Marquis of Ruvigny and Raineval, who seems (from what I can make out) to be the author of the book this article seems to be about. The article itself is more like a jumble of genealogical notes and references connected with the Moutray family rather than an encyclopaedia article about the book. Despite reams of apparent references cited, I can't find anything much that deals with the book itself or why it is notable. Karenjc 15:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For what its worth, take a look at the attack left on my talk page by the creator of this article. Doesn't look like they are going to be very open to anything but leaving this article as is, which doesn't really seem like a good option.--RadioFan (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsalvageable mess. Nsk92 (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - or redirect. The difficulties in discerning the subject and the apparent lack of notability are reason enough. I've raised this author at WP:COIN Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, tag added. This is pure nonsense: delete per CSD G1. — Timneu22 · talk 16:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, as essentially incomprehensible. Claritas (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's not incoherent enough for G1 as it does make a certain sense, even though it is somewhat of a gallimaufry as it stands. There are quite a few ghits for 'Moutray', but no seeming indication of notability. Many old families survived by being not very notable. It was a good strategy. There would appear to have been a lot of work done on this family history, but Wikipedia is not the place for it, I'm afraid. Peridon (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2010 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gitzabella Lombardo[edit]

Gitzabella Lombardo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The information regarding this person's acting work is apparently false, as no reliable sources can be found online that link her to anything mentioned in the article. It is impossible that someone who has supposedly done this amount of work, even if small roles, has never been credited - Lancini87 (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as article fail WP:ENTERTAINER. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Fails WP:ENT as no reliable sources can be found for her. IMDb has no entry on her and all the series listed in her article do not list her there. Univision has a small blog that probably is a fan edit. --Morenooso (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails verifiability -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CopyVio - www.hotelalindahaw.com  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Alindahaw[edit]

Hotel Alindahaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Questionable notability. Reads like an advertisement. No secondary sources. Would require a fundamental rewrite to comply with Wikipedia standards. Ithizar (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Disputed prod. Only source is to the hotels own website. Per nom reads like an advert. noq (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertising. — Timneu22 · talk 16:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:SPAM. Joal Beal (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After further review, I realized that the ENTIRE contents of the article are taken verbatim from the copyrighted web site of the hotel. Therefore, this article qualifies for speedy deletion. I have nominated it as such. I did not know the proper procedure for an article that is violating copyright after it has been posted for an AfD discussion. If this should be handled differently, please let me know. Ithizar (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2010 (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. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Limit (manga)[edit]

Limit (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article does not assert any form of notability. The only reliable sources that comes up are announcements that the series beginning in the November 2009 issue of Bessatsu Friend. That means only 7 chapters have been published so far. However, that does not amount to significant coverage as needed by WP:NOTE for a stand-alone article nor have I've been able to come across any reviews from reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 14:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 14:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Just one volume out in Japan. No ANN but has Ja wiki article. Leaning Delete for now as it's too soon to tell if it will meet either the GNG or WP:BK in the future. --KrebMarkt 19:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Keiko Suenobu. The creator is notable and the article can be spun out and improved if this work of theirs becomes notable. Edward321 (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G11 JohnCD (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Networkers[edit]

Platinum Networkers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unreferenced article promoting a company. Editor has twice removed speedy delete tags. Xtzou (Talk) 14:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising: an international team of professional entrepreneurs dedicated to empowering ordinary people to become inspirational leaders.... this team deeply believes in Leadership With A Heart.... they aim to lead many other ordinary people towards achieving extraordinary financial results. Speedy deletion request removed by original author without explanation here or elsewhere [16]. Note also that this business is Founded by Cheanu Chew, and that User:Cheanu is the only contributor of actual text. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Non notable; blatant spam. I will retag the article - they were previously invalidly removed. I42 (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortune Hunter[edit]

Fortune Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Topic is not notable to warrant individual article. Subject matter is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games article. Nomination follows similar discussions in related AFDs. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give or Keep[edit]

Give or Keep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Topic is not notable to warrant individual article. Subject matter is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games article. Nomination follows similar discussions in related AFDs. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2010 (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 List of The Price Is Right pricing games. As the relevant material is already in the List of The Price Is Right pricing games article, redirecting their seems more useful than deletion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hit Me[edit]

Hit Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Topic is not notable to warrant individual article. Subject matter is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games article. Nomination follows similar discussions in related AFDs. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable enough, all useful content already in the list. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurdles (pricing game)[edit]

Hurdles (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Topic is not notable to warrant individual article. Subject matter is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games article. Nomination follows similar discussions in related AFDs. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sottolacqua said it words, I'll say it in symbols: Hurdles content − List of The Price Is Right pricing games content = trivia. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2010 (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 sole "keep" basicaly argues that other articles exist - I am afraid that this is not an argument for keeping this article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PAR Springer-Miller Systems, Inc.[edit]

PAR Springer-Miller Systems, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The subject's notability is questionable at best. While the company is publicly traded, notability is not automatic in this case. Point of Sale articles show up on WP from time to time, and it seems like every little company wants to be listed on here as a way of promotion or advertising. While these companies may be notable within their own little niche market, there appears to be little notability outside it. Google searches for Springer-Miller do indeed get results, but none from reliable third-party sources. It seems more like the results are news feeds with duplicate information from this company's site. I realize that this company has a product base in a couple continents (so the article says), but I also point to WP:ORPHAN (zero incoming links!) and the article's sole editor for reasons why this company is not notable enough to warrant its inclusion on WP. Further, the editor of this article has edited only this page. For the record: I do consider this my weakest candidate for deletion, of all articles I've nominated, but I wanted to get a sense from the community. — Timneu22 · talk 14:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obvious advertising (Its guest-centric approach allows for all reservations, guest folios, spa appointments, golf tee time bookings, and ownership information to be easily accessible from a single guest record. PAR Springer-Miller Systems services hotels and restaurants of all sizes throughout the world....) I think we can safely say that a company that develops software (property management and point of sale) for the hospitality industry is probably going to get writeups only in media of limited circulation and interest. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As far as the notability is concerned: some of the company's competitors have articles (which also appear as advertising), so it is difficult to understand why they have notability and why this company does not. The company's founder was inducted into the International Hospitality Technology Hall of Fame. While I can see your argument about this being a "niche market", nonetheless, he is still a real innovator in his industry. I will continue to diversify the sources (2 additional sources have already been cited). I have deleted a portion of what was requested. The statement "PAR Springer-Miller Systems services hotels and restaurants of all sizes throughout the world" is not an advertisement and therefore I left it in the article. I have also resolved the orphan issue. Redoctober312 (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC) RedOctober312.[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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Choudhary[edit]

Ravindra Choudhary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested speedy. Non-notable person. GregJackP (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No notability. — Timneu22 · talk 13:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - promotional resume. No notability asserted to meet WP:BIO. The references do not include his name. Clubmarx (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity piece by someone using multiple socks to promote the subject--Sodabottle (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No indication of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sodabottle pegs this squarely: yet another vanity bio. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Slam dunk snowball delete. MiRroar (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• renominated for speedy delete, not much to discuss. Hairhorn (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2010 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Fleming Group[edit]

Carter Fleming Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested speedy. Fails WP:ORG. 203 GHits, all either from own site or linkedin, etc. 12 GImage hits, all linkedin. No GNews/Books/Scholar hits of any type. GregJackP (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can find no coverage whatsoever (not even press releases or blogs!) for "Carter Fleming Group", or it's consituent companies, "Carter Fleming Advisory", and "Carter Fleming Property". -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. I had tagged it as such, but the article creator, Johnnorg (talk · contribs) removed the template. I placed it back again, and it was removed again almost immediately by Martijean (talk · contribs), a newly-created single purpose account that smells strongly of meat. No evidence of particular notability in its field and absent some third-party proof that's so far not been forthcoming, it needs to go. — e. ripley\^talk 14:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails to show minimal importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:20, 3 May 2010 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Estonia relations[edit]

Croatia–Estonia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Tagged for cleanup on the basis of notability for many months, then PRODed, but then contested. Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A non-notable CountryX-CountryY article, many of which have been deleted in the past. Embassies, visa agreements, and state visits are routine affairs of state, not article-worthy. Tarc (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If Croatia's candidacy for the European Union turned into a membership, this would probably qualify without question; however, that hasn't happened. There is some (not much) indication of a developing relationship between the two nations [17]. However, unless someone wants to tackle the development of the article, I'd say that this is info that belongs in the FRO articles. Mandsford (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, even when that happens, that will still mean just one more multilateral agreement signed by both countries, albeit a significant one. It would still not mean much for the encyclopedic value of the topic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If the two countries don't even have mutual embassies and there's no obvious reason other than lack of interest, there's little value in documenting their uninteresting relationship. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Finland–Malta relations was deleted. As both have been full members of the European Union since 1995 and 2004 respectively, that doesn't grant notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In my book, it's hard to justify keeping County X-Country Y relation articles when neither country has an embassy in the other country (Estonia's is in Budapest and Croatia's is in Helsinki). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I failed to notice the lack of embassies. Joy and Ditzy has a good point on both counts. Mandsford (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete besides the Presidents meeting twice in the last 4 years, not much else to go on. (you would have to consider that leaders of European countries meet each other very regularly). LibStar (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2010 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Liddell[edit]

Marcus Liddell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested speedy. Non-notable high school student. GregJackP (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not inherently notable per WP:POLITICIAN (designated rep for his school at the local school board), and not notable under WP:GNG. I don't think it's fair to create encyclopedia articles for a person who isn't seeking the limelight, no matter how well-intentioned. If this man didn't request that an article be written (and there's a difference between requesting one and being requested to give the OK for one), it's an invasion of his privacy. Mandsford (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2010 (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. Without prejudice againsrt recreation should suitable reliable sources be located at a future date -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Till Tantau[edit]

Till Tantau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Software developer with no claim of notability and no reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Oneiros (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Oneiros (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He has created two packages that are among most used LaTeX packages. PGF is even among few LaTeX packages that have an entire website dedicated to collecting the work made using that package, see http://www.texample.net/ (it's down as I write this, but will likely get up soon). --Rivanvx (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show that he "has received significant coverage in reliable sources" (Wikipedia:Notability). Are there any articles on him or other published coverage? Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest trying WP:AUTH instead. There are very few articles on authors of free software, even if that software is used by many people.--Oneiros (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple independent sources found by a Google Books search--Oneiros (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind showing which ones have information on Till Tantau (apart from showing that he exists)? Also, see the quote below about the need for sources even if the person is notable. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:PROF, point 7: He is tenured professor, and his Beamer software has made substantial impact outside theoretical IT. The sources are thin but here is a reasonably reliable secondary source where all claims can be verified - the assembly of all German universities teaching IT (a very bold translation of "Fakultätentag Informatik") found it appropriate to put him on a list of top-IT people, along with Konrad Zuse, Ada Lovelace, and Edsger Dijkstra. --Pgallert (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their lack of perspective is disconcerting. It only goes to show that the sources aren't credibly independent from the subject. I could recall an equally inappropriate comparison made at a conference that caused the audience to burst into laughter, but I don't want to clutter this AfD more than I have to. Pcap ping 11:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second this remark of "lack of perspective". Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the central passage is this one: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for an article in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability." The three articles you mention all have several reliable, published sources. This article has not a single published source so far, just a web interview. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I created the article on PGF/TikZ, but "Beamer software has made substantial impact", c'mon, we're talking about a TeX slides package here, perhaps the most successful one, but that's hard to confirm, and even if it's so, we're talking of a software used by a small portion of academics. If PGF/Tikz reaches the level of notability of Postscript or even Metafont, then yea, could say that, but right now it's too early to say, and it's your personal judgment, you've not cited any sources that his software has made a significant impact. In fact, I had a fair bit of trouble finding secondary coverage for the software in what passes for wp:rs here. So, I don't think one can say that he automatically qualifies because of the software he authored. I know he wrote a multi-volume math book, but I don't think his research is well-known. Pcap ping 23:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to WP:PROF, point 7 in addition to being a significant mention on more than one standa-alone articles (see [18]). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PROF argument shredded by Pcap below. Merge and redirect to PGF/TikZ, if not Beamer (LaTeX). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I don't think he passes WP:PROF. Being a tenured professor is not a criteria for inclusion. Never mind that the German academic system is different enough that "tenured" isn't really a good translation for Universitätsprofessor. He never held an assistant professor postion. Being tentured right after getting a Ph.D is a bit strange, don't you think? Even being a full professor is not a criteria for inclusion. He does not appear to have his habilitation, which probably means he cannot lead Ph.D. students yet. His h-index is about 8; his most cited paper has 16 citations. His TeX work may be known to some, but both his TeX packages have a hard time finding independent coverage. They're not included in the usual TeX books. Although I think they have significant technical merit (I created the TikZ article, as I indicated above), that's just my opinion for now. The next thing somebody is going to add to his bio here is his civil union, 'cause that's pretty much all that's in his CV. Expecting "teh gay" vandalism shortly after that. There just isn't enough material here for an encyclopedic entry. (Yes, I know he got a MFCS best student paper award, that he spent a year in Karp's group as visiting scholar or postdoc maybe, can't tell from the telegraphic resume.) Pcap ping 11:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The german university system has changed. He is a full professor (C4); you don't need a habilitation anymore.--Oneiros (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assuming you're right, (the habilitation article indicates it's true only in some lands), that's even more reason to ignore his title for the purpose of this AfD. Someone practically straight out of Ph.D. becoming de:Besoldungsordnung C 4 is a good reason to ignore such a title. Besides, being a full profesor in itself is not a criteria for inclusion anyway. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tadao_Takaoka for instance. Pcap ping 23:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary—if he's got his Prof this fast, he must be extremly good.--Oneiros (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pcap. The subject is insufficiently notable on purely academic grounds to meet WP:PROF. Notability of a LaTeX package does not automatically confer notability onto its developers, so I find arguments from WP:PROF#7 less than convincing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: OK, here we have the aticle creator of PGF/TikZ, claiming the software is notable but the creator is not. It seems that also in the case of Beamer (LaTeX), the software is notable but the creator is not. And further, we have a misunderstanding of WP:PROF (The nutshell, item 2), three of the German university system (they do not have a position of assistant professor, all professors have a lifetime position, profs at a university, as opposed to a Fachhochschule automatically have the right to conduct examinations, including for PhD), and a blanket accusation that the Fakultätentag Informatik lacks perspective when using Tantau as a face to promote IT. Anything else? --Pgallert (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole discussion about notability is moot if there are no published reliable sources on the guy. No sources = no article, regardless of his possible fame or importance. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Till Tantau" being quite an unusual name you may safely assume all 1800-something Google-hits are his. Now there is a lot of crap among them, but some sources (yes, including the one from the Fakultätentag) are reliable, may they lack perspective or not. BTW, he's currently "Studiendekan", something like Vice Chancellor: Student Affairs check, maybe that adds to his case. --Pgallert (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of independent biographical sources. Sourcing is non-negotiable in biographies. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Due to complete lack of reliable sources that establish notability. The article may make mention that the subject fulfills one of the criteria of WP:PROF, but there is no reference to support this. As users above have mentioned, an article with one single notability claim must have a source for that claim. --Pumpmeup 14:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What would qualify as a source that proves that beamer (or tikz/pgf) is notable package? Links to 20 beamer tutorials? Links to videos that prove that beamer is often used at conferences? In TeX community, afaik, there is no list of "top 10 packages", but there are indeed some that are more frequently used than others. --Rivanvx (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2010 (CET)
  • The question here is the article on Till, not those on PGF/TikZ and Beamer.--Oneiros (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. A Google News Archive search returns no nontrivial results. This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (biographies). Cunard (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2010 (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.