Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 April 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 9 April 11 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Dead Kennedys discography. Lacking significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (in both the article and the discussion), redirecting seems the best option per the notability guideline for albums. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1978 Demos

The 1978 Demos (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 reliable secondary sources, only primary sources. Statements such as "It is presently unknown where the tracks were recorded. The band members have made no official statement regarding the tracks, other than guitarist Ray's mention; "The only theory we have is that there was a rehearsal studio that we used to rehearse at that had a recording studio next door, and that someone taped us one day and that's what that tape is". No further information is available." only assert non-notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication that these are notable demos. Demos which nobody has ever even acknowledged exist are impossible to be verifiable. The fact that the article only says "This lineup recorded their first demos" tells me how non-notable these really are. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons stated above. Those in the know will say that the possible existence of bootlegged copies of these demos is an item of interest in the history of the Dead Kennedys. At any rate, this can be mentioned (and verified, if possible) at the band's article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Early demos of an obviously WP:N band. The bootleg-only status isn't a complete dealbreaker, there's still historical significance. We have an entire article devoted to bootleg recordings of the Beatles, and articles like Great White Wonder, Chrome Dreams, and of course SMiLE demonstrate quite clearly that an album does not have to actually be released - or, in the case of Great White Wonder, ever be intended for release - to be considered notable. I think the best parallel I can draw is to Black Gold - unreleased recordings of historic significance. About the only potential hangup here is the potential lack of what most Wikipedians consider "reliable" sources - WP:RS sorta meets its match when dealing with certain areas, 70s punk being one of those areas where fanzines and self-published material are virtually the only contemporary sources in existence, and I'm personally more inclined to trust a contemporary fanzine over a Rolling Stone suckoff piece written five years later to appeal to the 18-25 year old demographic. We don't have much information about the contents of the Voynich Manuscript, either, but it's still notable. Badger Drink (talk) 18:43, 16 April 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 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. While some editors like it and others don't, merging seems the most agreeable solution based on the discussion once the article has been sufficiently condensed. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash (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 flag-cruft and not-news stuff yanked from 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. It is inherently unencyclopaedic and amounts to a memorial effort. Jack Merridew 22:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Warning: subst:spa|username -mania. IP-addresses are not real usernames, and can temporarly belong to any of the really active wikipedist, who this single time was lazy to log in. At the present moment, there are three SPA warnings at anonymous IP-addresses. prohlep (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, it is a good question why this particular deletion question is not a vote. OK, I personally do not like the votes as resource for decisions, even more dislike as a resource for truth. But then I wish to see, that we will not vote in the future in other interesting questions as well. I like the complete logical systems, where if something is true, then there is a proof for it, and there is no need to vote, like in a democracy. prohlep (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original begining is below the horizontal line below (prohlep (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)):[reply]

Nobody is proposing deleting the article about the event. The question is whether to delete the article about world leaders' reactions to the event. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in a separate article - this is a worthy perhaps list-class addition to the main article. I think it will help future readers get a better perspective on this tragedy. I think the contents are valuable, verifiable facts and actually encyclopedic. eug (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and trim into main article where this belongs. Eusebeus (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after wikifying appropriately. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(double vote) there is no reason to delete articles about international events that are still happening. It will take days before this article can be completed. 124.176.26.4 (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is an important notable article IJA (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SSTRONG keep this kind of thing exists across wikipeida. in addition to the moscow metro it exists for the 26/11 attacks, and others. it also makes page load times on the main page quicker instead of listing all of this when it gets so long — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)
  • Keep for now with a merge discussion to take place at the talk pages. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is a work of progress Venustas 12 (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
What article isn't? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep who proposed the deletion to begin with?? meh..--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; Wikipedia is not a page in which to replicate news reports, especially when they can all be summed up without loss of information as "Many countries and international organizations have expressed sorrow and condolence", as the main article currently does.  Sandstein  05:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsplit it should be in the main article. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And move a few of the relevant responses to the main article SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 06:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash article: The international response is predictable and standard when a sitting head of state dies. Why devote whole articles to it? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it will consume more place than the rest of the (main) article. Please see WP:SPLIT. --Illythr (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to the main article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on size grounds. At 54k it is too big to be a section of the main article. The splitting of is reasonable and acceptable. Mjroots2 (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, its current size is not terribly big. The previous incorporated version looked fine to me. Brandmeister[t] 08:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's nearly twice as large as the main article, currently. --Illythr (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The information back into the original article with a redirect left behind. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per size as it is now 56k and is referenced. I for one find there would be a great loss of information with the summary suggested by Sandstein. The global response from fellow heads of state to the accidental mass death of a huge chunk of a national government and their military leaders can not be adequately conveyed by a generic statement. The generic statement should accompany a {{Main}}, as it is at the time i write this. The article could be re-written in a style like Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings as Illythr suggests but to do so while this discussion is ongoing could lead to greater confusion on what is being discussed here. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 09:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The list was removed from the article at pl.wiki. You should do so. Patrol110 (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are many similar articles on WP, and consistency is important. It is well referenced and presented. In any case, keep at least for now, until the ongoing incident settles down a bit. -m-i-k-e-y-Talk / C 10:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - relevant and notable information that is too big for the main article; follows usual Wikipedia practice. Kostja (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - internatonal reactions are included in many other articles. Pl wiki didn't remove table, by the way. Sebk. let’s talk 11:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep with WP:SNOW - this information is verifiable in reliable sources and would be part of the main article were it not too large. It would be difficult or impossible to reconstruct later and is likely valuable to historians, researchers, etc. in the future - not to mention journalists right now. Furthermore it is not likely to be a source of problems (spam, vandalism, etc.) and thus is relatively benign. -- samj inout 11:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - let's imagine, if these texts and especially links may be used in scientific reports and mass-media in-depth analysis articles in some future? I think the answer is definitely yes, in both articles about the event itself and about the respective politicians. So the list is "encyclopedic". The information that is taken there is published in reliable sources, so it is notable and reliable information. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 12:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Encyclopedias are not lists of source data for research. So what you are describing are not encyclopedic. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a testing property for being an encyclopedia whether the information in question is used for research or not. Hence the reasoning above is false.
In fact the English wikipedia is overfull with diverse biographical, discographical and other data.
It is dangerous for this wiki to forbid the "lists of source data", because significant portion of this wiki is simply that kind of articles.
To be encyclopedic is an elastic notion. In spite of the diverse efforts to codify it correctly. prohlep (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(triple vote) International responses are important for an historical basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.26.4 (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC) — 124.176.26.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Inherently unencyclopedic. It's a list of flags and quotes, all of which are completely typical expressions of solidarity and condolence that are given after any disaster. They don't belong in the main article, and they definitely do not need to be in a article of its own. Bringing other articles into this debate is irrelevant. Also per User:Sandstein above.-- Flyguy649 talk 12:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: There may be some atypical international responses (e.g. Canada's National Day of Mourning for the victims) that merit inclusion in the original article; the other reactions are still non-notable. If the section is more than a paragraph then it's too long. -- Flyguy649 talk 15:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The forbidding of "Bringing other articles" is interesting, since there is a strong culture in the west to base the law on precedences. I.e.: the decision is based on comparision to similar earlier cases. prohlep (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and discuss merge in talk section. This was split unnecessarily anyway and without consensus. Icedragz (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. — Icedragz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. is placed without signing. (in fact, Rankiri did it) prohlep (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Icedragz appears to be an active author/corrector of the main article, and has some other activities as well, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Icedragz prohlep (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously. Lugnuts (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously, we have lots of articles like these, and for a reason. —Nightstallion 14:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTNEWS,WP:RECENTISM. The article is nothing but a fork of 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash#International filled with all kinds of synonyms for "sorrow" and "condolences". — Rankiri (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as separate article. - Darwinek (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as a separate article, that's obvious. Kubek15 write/sign 16:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, There are articles and sections specifically dedicated to listing international reactions. This is recognized and done normally when a major event happens, and this is major, as it killed the President of Poland. I say keep or merge into an International reactions section.--RM (Be my friend) 16:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - SiMioN.EuGeN (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - --noclador (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the news (WP:NOTNEWS). Every death of officials has "international response" i.e. condolences etc. I am getting tired of WP:RECENTISM. We are losing control here I think. PS Strong keep without any arguments means nothing to me. This is not a vote we are having here but a discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and then discuss merging). Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tranform similar to Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings article. prohlep (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in collapsed form. Why to delete if this article exists and is well? Emesik (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main article. If it is taking too much space then move it to the last section of the main article. But I think the main article is not exactly long enough to justify a split. Blodance the Seeker 18:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Reaction sections (and in certain cases, articles) are standard fare for international incidents. A bit of time will tell whether this needs to be a separate article rather than just a section. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The list is too long for the main page on the crash, a spinoff article is the only solution that works.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not important enough to warrant an article. Are all these "we're sorry for your loss Poland" messages from various governments really worthy of an article? Are they sufficiently distinguishable that Wikipedia needs to house every single one of them in an entire article devoted to them? Obviously the event itself is important but various world leaders issuing statements of sadness are not important. This article is unnecessary, it can all be contained in the main article, considerably trimmed down.173.59.191.99 (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Delete This type of responses are standard in international relations, and not in any way form or shape notable. They should not have an article, nor be included in the main article. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and discuss in a few weeks, not the day after the related event happened. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back and trim it up too, this would account for the majority of the refs cited if remerged. If that's not possible, weak keep simply to avoid a main article that is too long.  fetchcomms☛ 22:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Frankly, a list of generic expressions of condolence x from random government official y in random country z is not notable. Direct response in Poland and Russia is relevant here, but the rest can be summarized easily with "representatives of nations across the world expressed their condolences..." Blatant WP:NOTNEWS issue, but as always, that part of the policy never seems to apply. Resolute 22:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.229.1 (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC) — 99.24.229.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - per nomination. Everyone says the same things, gets boring Fighting for Justice (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing remotely noteworthy there; it's all totally predictable. Why not just create a page Standard responses to an international tragedy and link to that instead? Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good or bad, the precedence for such articles is well established, and this was a major disaster for Poland and the international community. Keeping it separate is also good for the main article. If the objection is just on the principle of having these reactions articles at all, then have that discussion elsewhere, or put all of the other articles up for deletion. I've tried, it doesn't work. Singling this one out just looks like systemic bias at its worst, the outcome would be a landslide keep if it were say, Reactions to Hurricane Katrina or Barack Obama blows his nose. MickMacNee (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Otherwise, why keep articles like International reaction to the 2009 Victorian bushfires?--Forward Unto Dawn 13:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles missed my radar. Ive proposed them for deletion as theyre unencyclopedic. 124.176.26.4 (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A batch nomination is hardly a difficult task. It is pointless in the extreme to have these tedious afd debates, where you could copy-paste people's delete rationales into an Afd on any article. And nominating an aritcle on the day of the incident, rather than one dating from years ago, is hardly a tactical master-stroke, if trying to show this whole genre is shit. MickMacNee (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a batch nomination is hardly a difficult task"... yeah... just find every "international response" article add the afd tags to it and do an afd for each of them... maybe it would be easy if you had a bot that had already been written to do the task for you. maybe for you writing your own bot to do all that is a piece of cake. for the rest of us mere mortals it is not. "nominating an article on the day of the incident is hardly a tactical master-stroke"... i agree. but it is what we are stuck with. Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ive gone and done a search for many international response articles and marked them for deletion. 124.176.26.4 (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a batch nomination you only write the Afd rationale once and list all the articles. Sure, you have to find and tag ever article, but that is not as onerous a task as you might think. MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one that I tried to initiate, yes (See here). It is hardly a difficult task to go check for other precedents if you doubt me. MickMacNee (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a big difference. That article is mostly about what kind of help countries sent. That's a significant difference to this articles list of formal condoleances. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it would be hard to justify that belief without resorting to generous helpings of WP:POV about what is and isn't important information worthy of recording. I happen to think that knowing who sent what aid to Katrina is just as trivial/predictable/newsish/non-noteworthy, as recording who said what in response to this incident. I do wonder though how this Afd would go if it had been Air Force One which has nosedived into the Rockies in Canada, or how that set of Afd's might have gone were it about aid after a hurricane that devastated, say, Nigeria. MickMacNee (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might happen to thing it's newshish or not notable, but you can't say it's the same thing. Therefore, you can not use the Katrina article as precedence in this case. Claiming it is as predictable or trivial is nonsense. In one case actual things were sent. In the other, standard statements of condolences was said. The difference is obvious and significant. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you haven't compared too many of these articles, but there is not much difference in the standard responses, whether people are saying something, or doing something. Like I said, this whole angle of debate requires huge amounts of POV to be able to say one article should be kept, the other deleted. I find it quite bizarre actually that in the topic of international relations, people think mere words are insignificant, yet sending aid is massively important. It's a naive view at best. MickMacNee (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the words are created by the autocondolencegenerator I think we can assume they are pretty insignificant. It's like those genuine and heartfelt 'romantic' words printed in a Hallmark card. They are generally penned by a bored twenty-something with his finger in his ear, at best. Ericoides (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take your offensive and disgusting views elsewhere, I'm not interested, and they are of zero relevance to this Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop your ad hominem remarks against me (here and below), OpenFuture ("naive at best") and others, and attempt to argue a position. Thank you, Ericoides (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hallmark comparison is actually of some worth. When you send someone one of those cards, the intention is romantic but the mass-produced sentiment as printed in the card, by definition, cannot be. I am not denying that the government officials feel for the victims of these tragedies. But that is not the issue here; what is the issue is whether it is worthwhile compiling a list of vapid platitudes. I haven't seen anyone give a good reason why such lists, which are indistinguishable one from another, are worth making. Ericoides (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Hurricane Katrina, Cambodia donated $20.000, Taiwan $3 million and supplies and Canada sent over a 1000 people, coast guard vessels and loads of help. It's an absurd statement to claim that there is no difference in different countries responses in that case. However, in response to the crash, these countries all sent expressed their condolences. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said compare countries aid to different incidents, not different countries to the same incident. Countries gave aid to Katrina, and countries expressed condolences on this death. Both entirely predictable and both entirely unremarkable. Trying to pretend there is a difference is pure POV. Or are we going to go down the route that it is editors role's to decide whether Canada sent enough people for their response to be recorded, or whether Russia expressed enough sympathy for their reaction to be recorded? It's irrelevant to whether the subject is notable or not, because that is an exercise in improper editorialising POV. The uniformity issue is a total red herring anyway, I doubt the reactions between responders would be uniform if it were the President of Iran/Israel/N Korea, which is why the actual content of the article is irrelevant to deciding whether the topic has merit. MickMacNee (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, sorry, you pretending that the Hurricane Katrina page is just as predictable and unremarkable as this page is utter nonsense, see above. And would the reactions not be uniform if it was an evil dictator that died? Perhaps not, but perhaps then *that* page would have some merit? *This* page doesn't, which you clearly realize and recognize. Don't bring your disappointment in your failing AfD for the Katrina page over here. The pages are not similar, it's not a precedent, and WP:OTHERCRAP is not an argument. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm looking, and I don't see it, no matter how many times you say 'nonsense'. The only consistent thing here is your demand that I simply acquiesce to your POV assertion as to what is and isn't important. And arguing there would be a difference in merit between this page and a similar page about a dictator would be a similar exercise in pointless POV editorialising. There is nothing to differentiate these pages except opinions, there is certainly nothing here actually resembling a valid deletion rationale per the deletion policy. MickMacNee (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While very well sourced, the information seems to be more a collation of news reports and not a permanent record of note. Any actual notable responses (i.e. beyond the expected norm) could easily be accommodated in the relevant disaster articles..." This is what you said when you nominated the Katrina reactions articles for deletion. Now, did your opinion make a 180-degree turn or do you need to take another look at WP:POINT? — Rankiri (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't get me wrong, I still favour deleting them all, but as I wrote above in my keep rationale, "Good or bad, the precedence for such articles is well established", and if the objection is to the whole genre, which appears to be the case, then picking out this one article is pointless, and I also object to this artificial and POV distinction between laundry lists of condolences and laundry lists of aid responses, both of which should not exist if I had my way, but precedence for which has been demonstrated. The irony of POINT is, if this does get deleted, I would imagine listing all the others at Afd would be rejected as POINT, even though as said, the delete rationales in here apply to the whole genre of condolence lists, whether people agree it also applies to aid lists too. MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different countries did actually send different types of help and different amounts of help as a response to Hurricane Katrina, and they actually do send different types and amounts of help to different disasters. But countries do not express different types or amounts of condolences as a response for this crash or other disasters. This is an obvious and self-evident difference, which you claim to be unable to see. I don't believe you. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. most of the votes to keep are WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS violations (not that that will stop the closing admin from doing vote counting anyway, in violation of wikipedia's deletion policies). this articles content could be added to the article on the crash itself with a single sentence - "countries around the world expressed their remorse". of course i also oppose merging. merging is only useful if people would search for "International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash". like it makes since to merge and redirect an article on the pilot into the article on the crash but an article on international responses? no one is going to normally do a search anyway. Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't an encyclopedia article but a news one. This may be a current event, but this article doesn't relate to that only what third parties thought about it. It's practically a page of hearsay about an event, regardless of the importance of the commentators. Dutpar (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This more than meets the threshold for WP:N. The international response to the crash has been a notable part of the reporting of the crash itself. Therefore, International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash is a notable subject in itself. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 21:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This was a major international tragedy. Since Reactions to the September 11 attacks exists, this should too. In fact, deletionists of this article should be ashamed of themselves and get a life; my apologies to them. Gregorik (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - unimportant, usual diplomation; but a (reasonable) part of it should be placed in the main article. (Deletion here will be also very helpful for deletion of the content like this on the pl-wiki) Laforgue (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - I don't like the idea of building a precedence for next articles describing events, which might create similar reactions. Death of country's officials (especially in tragic circumstances) always will cause international reaction and focusing our attention on so trivial part of the whole event reduces efforts, which should be concentrated on improving and updating the main article. I think that lack of reaction would be more notable in this situation and worth mentioning than mentioning every country, organisation, celebrity, sport association and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukasz Lukomski (talk • contribs)
  • Strong delete per nominator, Sandstein, and others. The topic just isn't encyclopedic, in that it catalogs the predictable platitudes given by various officials in reaction to an event. Further, the article lacks reliable sources indicating the topic is notable. (The reliable sources in the article show the crash is a notable event, but not that the reaction to the event is notable or interesting in any way). It's very much a "dog bites man" kind of article. Fletcher (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Basically, a whole bunch of nations who express their condolences and, for many, their quotes. It would be far better to briefly mention these in the main article in prose than it would be in an indiscriminate matter like this. This stinks of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. –MuZemike 03:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The vast majority of the entries are entirely predictable and repetitive ("the monarch/president/prime minister sent condolences ..."). The comments are simply WP:MEMORIAL and add no value to Wikipedia. The response in Poland and Russia should be incorporated into the main article. The rest is listcruft. WWGB (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Maybe "International reactions" are repetitive but they are really important and relevant. Jacopo Werther (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete predictable diplomacy Wizzy…☎ 09:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge' I think the last time I saw this, it was on the page itself. DaL33T (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The list is relevant in that it can help understanding the importance of the plane crash. Belgian man (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Who proposed this in the first place? If we merge this article with the main one then there will be a huge page strech from all the responses. This article is important because this accident shocked the entire world. This IS history and its a big part of Polish history. This is where all the support from the entire world should be kept. As a Pole, i feel that this is the right thing to do and i want to thank all the people that have helped us get through this tragedy. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a counselling service. Moreover, all of these responses are generated automatically; they do not come from the heart but from the machinations of diplomacy. Ericoides (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether you are trying to deliberatly be offensive or it is just an accident, this is not a valid reason to delete the article, or any article for that matter. Your personal assessment of how diplomacy works, or whether the responses are genuine or not, is utterly irrelevant to this debate. MickMacNee (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice if you assumed good faith. I am pointing out what many other people have said; that these condolences are a matter of international protocol, rather than expressions of personal feelings. OpenFuture's remarks in Commentary 3 are on the money, as are the comments below regarding the page being comparable to a "DDR evening news programme". Of course it is a good reason to delete the article (the reason being that all of these types of pages are the same, and so, without any identity of their own, they don't deserve individual existence as pages). Ericoides (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --John (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is well referenced and covered by multiple independent sources worldwide as the references section indicates. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this article is deleted please copy and paste the "Official Mourning" section and "Other reactions" section to the main article first. Them pieces of info are noticable. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 12:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Only the 2 sections I name above I found interesting; but the article is well referenced. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 12:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mixed views on this. Admittedly, this sort of article reads like something you would have seen on the old DDR evening news programme, sandwiched between a piece on the Young Communists' outing to a chemical plant and the latest fictional tonnage of barley produced. However, I do think the countries that declared official periods of mourning are worth a mention, as that is going a little further than the usual messages of condolence. Similarly, the special mass in Macedonia, and the lowering of flags at FIFA. On that basis I would say merge back into the main article, but it will need to be constantly patrolled to ensure it doesn't turn into the usual list of platitudinous letters issued. After all, everyone in Palau wants to make sure their country is mentioned up there with the United States! Skinsmoke (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Event warrants an "international response" page. Chesdovi (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that this article, although perhaps not very much in the scope of Wikipedia, contains a lot of valid and useful information. If it is deleted that information should go somewhere at least. Is there another Wikimedia Foundation project that could take the article on? If not then I think it ought to be kept. Zell Faze (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is no need for this page, but the information is encyclopedic and valuable. Merge it into an existing article (Cheers! Want Anything? Chatty?)babylarm 20:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The information is worthless as can be (minor points in a minor matter). Unthinkable to devote much thought about starting a similar list in German wikipedia. Frankly, it's wacky. Devote your efforts to something deserving. Won't be very hard to find. Almost anything else is eligible. This article is not adding to wikipedias merits, on the contrary. WaldiR (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong delete. Who cares if the presidents of Angola, North Korea, or the European Central Bank sent their condolences? It's standard diplomatic practice to send condolences when there are disasters of this scale. Therefore, it might be noteworthy if some head of state did not send his condolences, but not that he did. Besides, the sheer trainspotting-like cruftiness of this article strikes me as tasteless considering its context. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am amazed by the number of WP:IDONTLIKEIT 'arguments' which have been given for deletion; that it is 'predictable', 'boring' diplomacy is of no relevance to keeping or deleting this article. It has been said that this type of articles is unencyclopedic, inappropriate to Wikipedia but we have plenty of articles of this type so it must not be the case, the format of the article should probably be revised but it's not a matter for this AFD; the question is whether the existence of this article is justified. The incident is highly exceptional, rare in recent history are cases where a president and several persons important to the governing of a country died in an incident, this has major national and international consequences; and the reaction to such events is directly relevant and clearly an encyclopedic subject. The notability of the subject is evident and the sole policy which could apply is WP:NOTNEWS, but it has not been demonstrated that the policy prevented its existence. And it does not, it is clear that the underlying event is durably notable, and this article is an important part of the coverage of the event, it is not 'routine news reporting'. While this could be covered in the article on the event, the article size guidelines suggest we split it in a separate article, so the existence of this article is justified and not prevented by any policy, and merge is not an option in this AFD for this reason too. Merging thus is a purely editorial matter in this case and should be discussed on the talk page. Cenarium (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could expand on this: "The notability of the subject is evident". Because I think it's pretty evident that it is *not* notable, and I have given multiple arguments both above and below that shows this. So maybe you could explain how it is notable that many countries issue their condolences in this disaster, when they give the exact same condolences to every single major disaster. What's notable about these condolences? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is the (international) response to the incident, which goes beyond condolences, even if the article is mostly made of that at the moment. That subject is notable in Wikipedia standard, as defined at Wikipedia:Notability: there are multiple reliable sources covering the responses to the crash. People's perception of the subject's notability in an informal sense as opposed to the sense formalized at WP:N is not relevant to this AFD. Cenarium (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cenarium, you may be amazed by the number of WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, but most "con" arguments actually do cite rules that are being violated, while the "pro" arguments, including yours, seem to rely on WP:ILIKEIT. Nobody doubts the incident is highly exceptional and that the response to it therefore could provide enough substantial information to justify an article in its own right. However, in its present state, the article contains next to nothing but generic list-cruft (president of [country X] expressed his condolences). Also, the argument that the main article is too long doesn't work here. The amount of information that would remain after the removal of list-cruft could easily be included in the main article. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in my arguments rely on ILIKEIT, I evaluated the article with respect to our policies and provided counter-arguments to the claims that it violated policy. On a personal note, I'm completely uninterested by this article; I've noted this AFD because of a disruptive IP which inserted prods/afds in several articles to make a point, which I've warned and since blocked. I was brought to comment here by the number of comments based on personal opinions rather than Wikipedia policy which were presented, in both sides. The article in its current state needs editing and it's possible that we can merge it back into the main article, but that is an editorial matter which should be discussed on the talk page, not in an AFD, and is not a reason for deletion. Cenarium (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

(1) I tried to make a very nice compromise solution, keep the information, yet in the collapsable table so that it doesn't dominate the article if you don't click "show". For whatever reason someone again forcefully removed that (those people who have a motto that follows their actions - "Period. No one else may speak after me, my view is final and it must be that way or no way.") even though there were no opposing views on the talk page. Maybe this is usually not the right place to go into this kind of discussion but it would be nice to see if we can agree on this model and thus close this dispute in a nicer manner. (diff) - (version) --Avala (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like this version. This makes a lot more sense than a separate article. However, why is Ireland sitting there by itself? Icedragz (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. If the article becomes huge enough with the relevant in-browser notification, split would be more than welcome. WP:SPLIT sets the minimum split bound to >40 KB, this is not the case currently (same is true for 2010 Moscow Metro bombings and its spinoff Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings). On the other hand, we can wait. Brandmeister[t] 17:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

collapsable table is generally a work around only, and not a real solution. Due to the size problems, better simply to keep this as a separate article, just like the Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings one. prohlep (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(2) I propose a new category: reactions to major tragedies. prohlep (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there's the small matter of the size of the 116+ references that wont be hidden in the collapsable table. Lugnuts (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see, the page hit 61 KB (61+37=98 KB), meets splitting threshold now. Brandmeister[t] 18:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather fond of Avala's proposal. It works rather nice IMHO IJA (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have created Category:International reactions to man-made disasters which now complements the previously existing Category:International responses to natural disasters. __meco (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Move the article over to Wikisource. --Kslotte (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...where I would likely immediately delete it as completely out of that project's scope. Jack Merridew 20:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Avoid creating such an absurd section in the 2010 Yushu earthquake article created today. Ericoides (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary 1

On reviewing the above comments, I notice that at time of this entry, most of the editors (33) support keeping the article, eight suggest merging or transforming, and 10 propose deletion. Some of the 'keeps' are of course but a vote without a supporting comment.

Most of the ten deletion entry repeats more or less the same issue, what is opposed in great variety by the keeping entries. prohlep (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note of course the pointed statement that consensus is not gauged by votes. Logically speaking, the statement should be that consensus is not gained by votes alone. Those experienced in both logic and politics (at the macro and micro levels), and anyone who has ever tried to be a change agent in organisations or society, know that well-constructed arguments are often over-ruled by majorities even in the complete absence of a coherent counter-argument.

You are right: the majority in number of votes, i.e. the usual democracy is not a reliable source of truth. But we live in the age of democracy, when we are not ready to questionize our common dream of democracy. prohlep (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the current case, the counter-arguments vary, but it would be disingenous to describe them all as incoherent. Conversely, the delete arguments are not without merit, such as that the article essentially amounts to a memorium, and comprises a list of standard condolences and platitudinous comments which international heads of state etc feel compelled to issue for both international and domestic consumption (which is not to say that various heads of state are not genuinely moved by the tragedy. They almost certainly are, but to survive they must first and foremost be political animals - Aristotle by the way, called mankind a 'zoon politikoon', or political animal).

Inconsistency of the conter-arguments due to the fact, that there is a great variety of ways, how to show, why better not to delete the article. In other words: there are quite a few, mutually inconsistent ways, how the content in question can be keeped. If we choose one of these ways, then that one way will not be inconsistent. prohlep (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, this last point itself points to the basis for a 'keep for now' argument, which goes something like this:

International events of this nature have multiple facets. For example, the facets of mourning, both nationally and internationally, and the facets of politics, also both nationally and internationally. Statements by heads of government etc are almost never without the context of political consumption, both at the international level, and the national level. This latter is typically the most important for the person making the statement, as it is the local population that must first and foremost be convinced or controlled for a person or persons to stay in power.

Among the 'keep' arguments, those pertaining to the fact that it is just too soon seem to have some merit. The event's sequelae have yet to unfold, and may yet feedback into this article. Wotnow (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary 2

I have just read throu all the more than hundred items in the article.

It yields an interesting picture, how wide spread the polish diaspore in the world is.

And in addition to this, that how widely the polish origin is accepted by non-polish people.

This article documents the relation of polish people with the others.

Yet an other reason to keep this particular "international reactions" article.

prohlep (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prohlep's comments are exactly why this article needs to be kept. International response (extent of condolences, countries involved) provides a unique view of the world via Poland that has not been documented. At face value, the the repetition of canned statements of concern may seem droll, but important balances of power are hidden amongst the expressions of grief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edcrowle (talk • contribs) — Edcrowle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I find that entirely unconvincing (the Polish diaspora stuff); the reaction would have been much the same had it been the Czech, Slovak or Romanian president. It's called diplomacy. Moreover, these lists are dangerous precisely because they are not exhaustive. Where are Monaco and Liechtenstein? Did the news not reach them? Were they not bothered? Are they going to feel embarrassed by not being mentioned here? These sorts of lists are so contrived that it wouldn't be too absurd simply to create a template with a list of all the countries in the world with their pretty flags followed by the words, 'The President expressed his heartfelt sorrow/sent his condolences/was outraged by/is keeping up to date with developments', and then simply keep the phrase used and delete the others. But much better not to create them in the first place. Ericoides (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Commentary 3

Without cheating, can you tell which article each comment comes from, or which country? 

* President X sent a telegram and expressed his deepest condolences.
* The President, X sent a telegram voicing his condolences.
* President X condemned the attacks, offered condolences to the families of the dead, and expressed smypathy for the injured.
* President X condemned the blasts, calling them dishonorable and recreant.

How is any of this notable in any way? Articles with international responses can be meaningful, like the one for 9/11. Articles that lists standard international condolences from one country to another is not. International reaction to the 2009 Victorian bushfires should be deleted, and International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash as well. Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings should be cleaned up (and maybe merged). Same thing for Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The particular case in question has distinguising features.

  • Do not mix 9/11 here! That is a different category, like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and other cities where huge number of innocent citizens were killed on the base of a carefully developed attack plan. 9/11 is not an accident, like the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash.
  • The crash in question wanished significant fraction of the leadership: administrative, monetary, polytical, etc. It has a nontrivial impact on the future. Hence it is interesting, how the diverse countries react on it.
  • It is also interesting, that there was no reaction at all on the reason of the crash. Why? At least one of the passangers was a victim of himself/herself. This is clear from the partial information available by now.

prohlep (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary 4

The mess that these pages always turn into is now forming very nicely in the 2010 Yushu earthquake page. See Talk:2010_Yushu_earthquake. Surely it would be better simply not to have these sections/pages (or have definite policy guidelines) rather than go through this pointless exercise every time? Ericoides (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary 5

I believe that most would agree that this is an unprecedented and unique tragedy with profound international ramifications. Observing and noticing such display of good will pouring in from all over the world will do us all some good. While the article could perhaps use some help, it should most definitely stay. It really doesn't matter if it was about the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, or some other nation. I would naturally said yes as well. It happened to Poland, so it is about Poland. None of this is driven by any conspiracy theories or underhandedness of any type. Like I said, reading through this list may do us all some good. Please keep it. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a place of mourning or making shrines to people. If you want to collect all the condoleances on a web page to help you deal with the emotions of the accident, then that's all well and good. But Wikipedia is not the place for it. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is not, but it is an important part of the record. I don't believe you would have a problem with preserving historic record of this incident? And this would certainly qualify as such. I am sure, you are not suggesting that. While people express their grief and emotions in all sorts of ways, this is, above all, a record of that tragic incident that should be preserved. Some years from now someone will visit Wiki searching for international response to this incident, and they will find it here, on Wiki. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is also not an archive. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that all of these condolences messages sent by HEADS OF STATE, PARLIAMENTS, INTERNATIONAL BODIES, ETC are made up, or forged, and that by including their content on Wiki we are contributing to some sort of dubious falsification? Why does it trouble you? These appear to be genuine expressions of sympathy, and nothing else. This is an unprecedented, unique, and one-of-a-kind incident with profound international ramifications. There is no precedent against which this particular tragedy can be gauged - and it is exactly what what makes it very unique. Are you talking about storing and / or archiving bytes or bites, or about providing meaningful and verifiable RECORD about this tragic incident. You know, the word "archive" has many, many meanings. One of them is PRESERVATION OF FACTS, and I'd hope that you are not suggesting that such expressions of sympathy, issued by such great number of nations are anything other than what Wiki itself defines as verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what is the difference between unique and very, very unique? 86.186.143.198 (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typo. Большое спасибо! Doomed Soldiers (talk) 15:08, 17 April 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) 12:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sent (film)

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

Unremarkable film, lacking notability. Aiken ♫ 22:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 22:43, 10 April 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) 12:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Keogh

Karl Keogh (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)

Football player who does not meet the WP:ATHLETE or WP:N guidelines. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:32, 10 April 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) 12:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wondo Genet Essential Oils Research Sub Center

Wondo Genet Essential Oils Research Sub Center (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 research center. DimaG (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article was created by an editor who worked on no other article, & after creating it has made no further edits. No one else has added substantial content to this article. -- llywrch (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim of notability. Possible speedy. --Banana (talk) 23:48, 13 April 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 no consensus. A name change for the article would certainly be in order, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 663

United Airlines Flight 663 (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)

Incomplete deletion request. Per Talk:United Airlines Flight 663, the nominator was arguing WP:NOT#NEWS. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:BLP1E concerns too. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All notable commercial airline accidents and incidents are one-time events, and we cover them as a matter of course. This incident was covered internationally and has led to broader debates in the national media (see citations in article). It's notable when the State Department makes it clear they want a diplomat out of the country as soon as possible. Although extensive BLP-type biographical information about the diplomat was published, the article mentions him by name only because he was the reason for the incident. Jokestress (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. KzKrann (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "United Airlines Flight 663" is merely a trivia answer to the question of when the "case of the diplomat smoking in the bathroom" occurred. This could and should be mentioned under Embassy of Qatar in Washington, D.C.. It's definitely a WP:NOTNEWS thing that has no historical significance. Every once in awhile, there's a "strange news" story about a plane making an emergency landing because someone heard a loud ticking noise, or there was a belligerent passenger, or there was a strange smell that seemed like gasoline, etc. WP:AIRCRASH makes suggestions for appropriate places to refer to emergency landings occasioned by a false alarm. Mandsford (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and merge cant mention every flight on here. in the lead it says that this is a flight from X to Y onward to Z. really not notable for it. That said the info is notable and as mandsford said it can be merger elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)
  • Keep- The amount of fury over this incident, and the potential diplomatic repercussions, push it past a simple news story into something encyclopedic. And as long as the gentleman in question isn't mentioned in the article by name, there are no WP:BLP1E concerns. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A poor title is not cause for deletion. Some of the deletes reference that airplane flights are non-notable. I don't think anyone is claiming the flight is notable, but rather the diplomatic incident. I would say the near expulsion of a diplomat by the state department (stopped only by his timely departure from the United States) is notable. Also, I think Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) applies much more than WP:BLP1E, as the latter is about biographies.--Banana (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article's title is Wikipedia convention for accidents and incidents on commercial airliners in the US (see this page). As many people have pointed out, flights with incidents are relatively common. Few of these incidents are notable enough to make the front page of the New York Times on two consecutive days, as this one was. Jokestress (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My reasoning can be found on the article's talk page, but in a nutshell, this article is not about a notable event in history. Despite one editor adding citations for dozens of news articles, no justification has been made about the actual importance of this issue in history, nor any explanation for why the 34 other cases of security-related flight diversions since Jan 1 of this year alone don't each have an article. Also as I said elsewhere, it may be the case that this incident deserves a mention on an article about airline security, or even an article about journalistic ethics and the dangers of sensationalism in live coverage of news events, but it does not deserve its own article. Janus303 (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the WP:ALLORNOTHING argument. If any of the other 2010 flight diversions have been the subject of this much news coverage and analysis, they should have articles as well. Attempts to downplay the event's significance as simply "a man smoking on a plane" do not reflect the way the national media sees its significance. Jokestress (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 34 other cases didn't cause a diplomat to leave the country.--Banana (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the same reasons enunciated by Janus303. In addition, I see this as but another example of how Wikipedia is sliding into the abyss of agenda journalism. We are supposed to be trying to build a world-wide encyclopedia that has a stellar reputation for not only accuracy, impartiality and a good sense of what kind of news is indeed "fit to print," but which also has long-term notability. Right now, we are ignoring many of the guidelines that were set down, to help us to achieve the goal of having an encyclopedia with a high degree of credibility. I find sensationalist journalism not only repugnant, but also highly distortional when it comes to an honest and complete portrayal of history. EditorASC (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not clear what agenda you think is reflected in the coverage of this event by the New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, etc. The article appears to be an accurate summary of the incident and the issues raised by it. It meets all the general notability guidelines and has been the subject of continued analysis in major news outlets. What in the article do you consider sensationalist or part of an agenda? Your argument and the others above which characterize the incident as not newsworthy or trivial constitute bullet 4 at WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jokestress (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability – particularly for living individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E). For example, routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article." One can dredge up a hoard of "it's a slow news day" articles on trivial subjects, most of the time. Lotsa links doesn't prove anything other than we are beginning to worship trivial tabloidism in Wikipedia. I cannot think of a better example of tabloid journalism, than this piece of "notable" trash. EditorASC (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the diplomatic issues here, this is hardly "tabloid". If this were just some random person who had done this, then certainly this would fall under the not news policy. However, given that there's a wider scope to the effects of this then just the initial story, it hardly seems fair to call it "tabloid". Umbralcorax (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What does being a "Diplomat" mean? An ambassador for one's country. And now, Mohammed al-Madadi is embarrassed by his sophomoric behaviour. He should be embarrassed, and so should Qatar. Let us hope that his career representing his country is over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie1960 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia doesn't exist for the purpose of embarrassing or shaming people into changing their behavior. That's not a legitimate reason to keep this article. Janus303 (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have moved the above two comments from the top of the page to the bottom so the closing admin can easily see how the discussion developed.--Banana (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to United Airlines article, the diplomat being involved and the political fall-out mean that the incident should be mentioned there. It is not sufficiently notable to sustain its own article. Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Mjroots. I'm not sure that this rises to the standard under accidents and incidents since the airframe was not involved and there were no injuries. If this merits an article, then we are saying that any reports of smoking in the head are notable. The other possibility is that any time a diplomat does something wrong, it merits an article. If we accept those as support for not be a one time event, then do we extend it for politicians and actors? Bottom line is that it causes a bigger problem by having a separate article. In this case merge into the airline. In the long run this should be included mainly in the article for the individual, if they are notable with a pointer and brief mention in the article for the place where it happened. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:AIRCRASH standards. Just because the news covered it does not mean that it is worthy of of Wikipedia article....Maybe this belongs on Wikinews.Spikydan1 (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Slow news day event of some guy smoking in the bathroom. Crum375 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per Mjroots, it's not clear that WP:AIRCRASH is applicable, because it was not created to anticipate an incident of this type. We routinely cover non-fatal incidents like this one, as well as ones that do not involve a crash (near misses, etc.). The Cargolux Flight 7933 article had similar traffic to this article when the incident occurred. Readers will continue to seek out information about this incident, and it seems this is too much information to merge onto the United Airlines page. I believe the standard by which this should be judged in terms of notability is Category:Diplomatic_incidents. We cover both Krushchev's shoe-banging incident and Kuzma's mother as articles. Both are too detailed to explain in his bio, but both merit explanation. The last shoe-related incident in the Middle East was also brought up for deletion with the same objections: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper," "WP:BLP1E" etc. That article now only averages 3 views a day since it survived AfD, but it is still valuable and useful to the project. Jokestress (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also do not see how WP:AIRCRASH applies, as this essay appears to be written to distinguish between routine and major aviation accidents. The article is about a diplomatic incident, with the spark happening to occur on a plane. I am basing my keep vote! off of WP:EVENT, and the impact I believe this event had on the diplomatic relations between the United States and Quatar. --Banana (talk) 00:39, 17 April 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) 12:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Gilmore

Tim Gilmore (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 on college professor/poet seems to fall short on both WP:PROF and WP:GNG notability guidelines. In addition, the editor who wrote the article is User:Timgilmore. B.Wind (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only one item listed on worldCat, a book of self-published poems. [1]. The usual way writers of short works become notable is when they are included in standard anthologies or win awards, or eventually comprise a book that is widely held. He does not seem to have yet done any of these, so I think the judgment is not yet notable. No prejudice against an article if he does achieve further. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to fail WP:PROF - gscholar didn't show much. I believe DGG addressed the authorship aspect above. I see no other claims to notability in the article. RayTalk 21:38, 13 April 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Dekhruel/Ancestors Revenge

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 Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Mooninites

The Mooninites (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 Plutonians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wholly non-notable content lacking citations to reliable third-party sources. Single editor with eerily similar interest to banned editor also tendentious about ATHF reverting redirect. --EEMIV (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Mooninites article should be redirected. It doesn't have enough information. Careymeans 1:22, 10 April 2010

I do like this show, but why can't this just be part of the aqua teen article. no sense in it being different. PvsKllKsVp (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Careymeans 2:46, 10 April 2010

  • Related AfD here; Mooninites has been a long-standing redirect to replace similar cruft. Same pattern of obnoxious restoration. (One of the two editors of this more recent iteration was just blocked as a a longtime sockmaster.) So, no, this article hasn't had a lot of "let's try a redirect first" but the topic has. --EEMIV (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. I redirected this article shortly after creation but its author must have undone that. ThemFromSpace 20:57, 11 April 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 as per consensus and the absence of deletion requests beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Punjab (India)

List of people from Punjab (India) (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 recently-created article is basically a cut-and-paste copy of the bulk of List of Punjabis, except with all the Pakistanis removed. My PROD was contested with the remark that this article "is list of people from a state of India, List of Punjabis is list of people from an ethnicity," so I suppose (though I can't immediately tell) that this article also wouldn't include foreign-born Punjabis. Nevertheless, the difference is minor, and I don't know that there are any foreign-born Punjabis in the List of Punjabis to start with. As for the Pakistanis, List of Punjabis already segregates them from the Indians in most cases. The result is that this article is, at best, basically a questionable content fork which duplicates word-for-word probably 80% of the List of Punjabis, and whose purpose (if there is any) could be carried out with minor rearrangement and better headings for the existing article.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: Because all you've done is created an article that'll almost entirely duplicate material in an existing article, except minus the Pakistanis. The result is that the lists will be harder to maintain (List of Punjabis has already been semi-protected because of maintenance issues), and related material will wind up getting spread unnecessarily among several articles rather than kept together in one easy-to-use article. Most of your argument falls under WP:WAX; the rest seems to consist of a misunderstanding that just because List of people from X and List of Xians could both exist, with ever-so-slight differences between them, they should both exist. The fact that the two articles have "similar looks" isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the problem that they're so similar in scope as to make it counterproductive to separate them out.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do not seem to be aware of the states of India and population patterns and various ethnicities. Not all people living in Punjab India are Punjabi.A good number of people from other Indian states like Haryana, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi etc also live there and they are not Punjabi.That is true for all major Indian states.There is lot of internal migration within the country.We need the state wise list of people to accomodate all people irrespective of their ethnicities. We have list for all other states then Punjab India should also have one. : Shyamsunder (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lists of people from a city are acceptable, and this is such a long list, it cannot be practically merged into another article. Dew Kane (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People from the state of Punjab need not be Punjabis. There is internal immigration within India. The categories "List of People from State X" are needed to differentiate between ethnicity and state of residence/domicile. By having a single "Punjabi people" category, an immigrant from say Tamil Nadu living in Chandigarh will be classified as "Punjabi" (along with citizens of Pakistan). How is this rational?. And comparing this with Ford/gas powered Ford automobiles is just plain weird.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:30, 15 April 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 no consensus. The discussion, in general, surrounds the issue of whether or not the subject is notable only for one event - but consensus for this cannot be found in either direction. The prevailing reason for our WP:BLP1E policy is to avoid biographies that give undue weight to the event and to avoid conflicting with a neutral point of view. Because the article, as of now, is fairly sourced free of these concerns, and because no consensus on whether or not current coverage derives notability, waiting further to see "how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources" further becomes may be the best course of action. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Ely

Eric Ely (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)
  • Delete Not notable person, one event controversy. WP:BLP1E Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am still working on this article. For example, I just added more information to the lede within seconds after this AfD nomination. Even before the current controversy, Ely was a "go-to guy" on school budget issues in New York. He managed a 9-figure budget. There are numerous reliable sources in the article, many of which are exclusively about Ely. Every sentence is properly cited per WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP1E writ large. This is a news story about an event, masquerading as a biography of one of the players in the event. WP:TABLOID fail. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ely easily passes WP:POLITICIAN. His budget of $161 million is twice that of the City of Schenectady ($78.8 million - see here). The sources show news items, legislative testimony, letters from the state's deputy Comproller, etc. This guy has been notable for long time. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For those obsessed with Google, "Eric Ely" gets 24,600 ghits, and after removing the usual cruft, there are still over 10,000. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I keep finding more sources them and adding them as I find them, especially from 2006-2009. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Ely fails WP:POLITICIAN which has 3 criterion, none of which he meets. "1. Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges." - clearly not. "2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." - not. He is not a "major" local political figure, nor has he received "significant" press coverage, except for the BLP1E. "3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." - this one illustrates that he would not be considered notable at all, apart from the BLP1E.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Superintendents of Schools in large cities are almost certain to be notable. There's always press, as Berian has been showing . It will of course be necessary not to emphasize any one of the events. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Schenectady is a small town, not a big city.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It will be taken into account. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Schenectady is a medium-sized city in New York. It's not a town. The school district is also the largest in population in the Capital District with almost 12,000 students. It comes close to half the size of one of the Big 5 districts in the state (Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, NYC, Yonkers), so it's a sizable district that's well-known in the state. upstateNYer 23:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upstate is correct. And his correction is a significant one. It's no-doubt a good-faith error. Uncorrected, however, it inadvertently misleads editors, by inaccurately downplaying the nature of the ninth-largest city in the U.S.'s third-largest state. By comparison, the states of Wyoming and Vermont don't even have one city that is that populous. I note that the error does not just appear above, but is repeated twice below as well. That suggests that it is a significant foundation of Jimbo's analysis, and IMHO accordingly brings that analysis into question.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Schenectady, New York "As of the 2000 census, the city had a population of 61,821, making it the ninth-largest city in New York." No small town would have a budget that big. Dream Focus 20:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I trust User:Bearian as a dedicated and trustworthy editor who I believe will continue to improve the article. Some issues that must be addressed however are the use of blog entries and other citations that arent RS or at best iffy (also I'd say eight references for one sentence is over-kill).Camelbinky (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked two as needing better links. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, there can never be overkill for WP:BLPs. The more controversial the statement, the more citations are needed. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I, too, trust User:Bearian. I don't agree with him on this case, but he is neither irresponsible nor a bad editor by any stretch of the imagination. I think that our mutual respect for Bearian shouldn't have too much bearing on the policy question, as reasonable people can certainly differ.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't trust Bearian. Nor do I mistrust him; it's just that I barely know him. But I agree that that isn't the issue. I also believe the article has to be judged as it stands. I don't see this !vote as a policy question, though, but rather as the application of existing policy to the article at hand.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I must raise two delecate issues, the first procedural. Why, of the hundreds of proposed or discussed articles for deletion every single week, has the Chairman of the Foundation gotten involved in this one? Of all of the gin joints, why this one? Has the subject of the article or a friend of his contacted you? Somebody did. It would not be without precedent (for the Chairman or the subject), and for both persons, it has not ended up well. The more substantive, but no less delicate, issue is habits of the subject. Ely spent four solid years chasing the local media, members of the legislature, and local officials. After peddling his wares for those years to become a public figure, suddenly he wants privacy. Hogwash. The last thing Wikipedia needs is more publicity that we are trying to censor a tragic story. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Jimbo is not Chairman of the Foundation. He is Founder of Wikipedia and Chairman Emeritus of the Foundation. Secondly, Jimbo was asked for his views on this article on his talk page and has frequently made his views known on subjects related to biographies of living people. --Tango (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, to answer for myself, no, neither the subject of the article nor a friend has contacted me. I have no connection to the subject in any way as far as I know. I was shown this as an example, on my talk page, as Tango says. I take an interest in BLP issues, particularly where - as in this case - I think we are likely to get it wrong.
"The last thing Wikipedia needs is more publicity that we are trying to censor a tragic story" is a very nice statement of what I think is wrong with this article. This article would not exist, but for the controversy, because the man is simply not notable. That's what makes this a classic BLP1E situation. This article is a fit subject for Wikinews, and a question of whether or not Wikipedia should cover it is not a question of "censoring a tragic story".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the article to Wikinews would mean that the work spent so far was not wasted, and would be available if this Eric Ely guy ever becomes notable other than ex-officio or for this single scandal. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hate voting against an article because so much work is devoted to creating content and so often, articles are nominated for AfD because of long-running disputes. But I fully agree with the nominator in this case. WP:BLP1E states Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. In this case, the article states He generated ongoing national news… yet there are precious few citations in that article (none that I could find in a quick scan, actually) that link to a national source such as CNN. In fact, both citations to that last quote were to a local newspaper and the local CBS affiliate, cbs6albany. This subject, while no-doubt a big deal in Schenectady, has made barely a blip in the national news—let alone “ongoing” national news. I would say it is demonstrably a “single event” of a “low-profile individual” and, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, does not belong on Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Greg's comment is off the mark in a couple of respects. First, it shouldn't matter to us how much time the editor put into the article. If the article fails our criteria, it should be deleted, without fanfare or regrets. Second, I don't agree with Greg's dismissive treatment of the refs in this article. I note with some concern that he renders a conclusory opinion after having only engaged, by his own admission, in "a quick scan" of the refs. I do think it is incumbent upon those who comment at an AfD to engage in a more complete review, before submitting their opinions. Opinions expressed here that have as their foundations only "quick scans" suffer from a paucity of information that ineluctably leads to a less-than-fully-informed opinion.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator and in agreement with Greg L. It is relevant that Schenectady is a small town, that we would not even be considering the article were it not for the WP:BLP1E single event, and that there is nothing particularly noteworthy about the event itself. (We quite properly don't have an article about the arsonist.) Small town bureaucrat under fire for not dealing correctly with an employee issue isn't sufficient for a Wikipedia entry. If this guy runs for governor someday, or something of that nature, then perhaps an article could become viable. But as it is, he's simply not notable but for this controversy. (I am commenting as an ordinary user here, not making a decree or anything wild like that!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Our article says he controls a budget of $161m. Would we have an article about a CEO of a company with a turnover of $161m? Probably not unless the CEO was notable for some other reason (and this guy doesn't seem to be). I think the same principle applies to the public sector. --Tango (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Changed to Delete, as per my comments generally and their logical consequence for an opinion, though I appreciate the work referencing this subject. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC) I was going to suggest deletion as nothing strikes me as particularly remarkable about this person or his life. But to show appreciation for the meticulous work in referencing this article (I've been doing some of this lately and it takes a lot of work), and to prevent a pile-on, I am suggesting keep. I'm sure any admin would be happy to restore this article if it is deleted and should Eric Ely surprise on the upside in the future by actually doing something significant. Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel the same way, Stephen; we seldom want to see any editor who has labored to produce encyclopedic prose have it flushed. I go to bat whenever this is done out of spite due to a long-runniing feud between editors. But there is no Wikipedia guideline that grandfathers an article just because the editor did a fine job on an otherwise non-notable subject. I do, however, very much admire your having the backbone to weigh in here after Jimbo and stand up and speak your mind for what you think is the *right* thing. Greg L (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know it's not popular, but I'm not here to court popularity. In a case like this, I prefer to change the editor rather than the edits. One good editor can make thousands of good edits. I think this editor already knows that other articles like this are at risk, and he will take this into account when deciding which articles to create and improve in future. On the other hand, a demoralised and disenchanted editor helps no one. If everyone was as tough dispassionate as me, I'd be happier with deletion. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I was pleasantly surprised by how thorough this article was and happy to see that it didn't just revolve around the scandal. It's also well sourced and pretty well written. I made some wording changes to be more correct to the terminology used in the education system in NY. While I see the points for delete, I think this is pretty grey. If nothing else, this is actually a really good source for information on the case and much more centralized and complete than you'll find in any news article in the local papers, which only talk about Raucci. As far as I'm concerned, it's been successfully rescued. upstateNYer 23:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is very well-referenced now and I believe it goes beyond the original event and has sources that are about outside information. SilverserenC 00:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. BLP1E is clearly inapplicable. This seems to be one of the least understood guidances, and I often wonder whether those who invoke it have read past the phrase "one event". First, BLP1E does not apply--because, as can be clearly seen, it is not the case that "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event". The article clearly reflects RS coverage with regard to more than one event. That, by itself, is enough to get one out from under application of BLP1E. Second, if we judge whether a person is "low-profile" by the number of articles in RSs that discuss the person, it is also not the case (I would submit) that the "person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". He had RS coverage before the main event discussed in his article, he now has the highest-level office he has ever had (superintendent of New York's ninth-largest city's school system), and we should therefore expect future coverage at least as great if not greater than that he had before the "one event". IMHO, the RS coverage of Ely and of his actions and statements reflects notability consistent with that called for by our notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable for more than just one event, as Epefleeche convincly demonstrates by reference to the proper interpretation of BLP1E. This guy would merit an article even without the controversies. But the one event concerns do need to be addressed: I would suggest paring back the controversial sections of the article. A single section of three to four paragraphs would suffice. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Outback the koala (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I vote delete for marginally notable BLPs, especially ones that contain negative info, this is at best marginally notable. Sole Soul (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Have the people praising the sourcing for this article actually read the sources? From what I can see, none of the sources that discuss Ely in any detail are independent. In fact all of them appear to be affiliated with the Schenectady school district. The bulk of the rest mention Ely's name once or twice, but are generally only passing mentions that note he is the superintendent of the district where "issue a" or "issue b" is being discussed. At least two are from blogs associated with newspapers, and one is an editorial. Outside from the pages supplied by his employer, the only sources that discuss him in depth are related to the arson controversy. This fails WP:Politician and the sourcing is dreadful. This needs to be deleted. AniMate 16:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, AniMate, the cited sources do not support the assertion in the third paragraph of the article’s lead that reads He [Eric Ely] generated ongoing national news. There is this UPI article, picked up by Moldova.org, but it wasn’t about the Ely scandal proper, and was instead about how “lesser charges” were possible in the case of the teen who dressed up as a woman to take the test. As for news coverage about Ely and the scandal around the allegations that he knew about the criminal allegations, the links are predominantly from local newspapers and TV affiliates like the Albany Times Union, WAMC, WTEN, WRGB, and the Daily Gazette for Schenectady, NY.

      Though this scandal is no-doubt a big deal in the Schenectady area and is on the lips of town locals as they socialize, the article clearly needs citations that properly support the necessary claim that the scandal saw significant and prolonged coverage in the national news. Failing that, it requires quite a stretch of the imagination to think that this subject has the widespread (outside of the Schenectady area) notability required for inclusion in an internationally read, English-language encyclopedia.

      It certainly would have bee nicer if the shepherding author of this article had better understood Wikipedia’s policies before devoting so much effort on this; his or her efforts would have been far better utilized elsewhere on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia’s policies permitted this sort of story, I might have put my story about Murder on Mica Peak (a big deal locally) in mainspace. Greg L (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • LOL. If I wrote up the things that had happened in my life (so far), my only defence against libel would be that people wouldn't believe they could have actually happened! Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • While this isn't the place for policy debate, I will point out that notability guidelines here are a bit hypocritical. While some will interpret policy to support this article's deletion, Wikipedia is actually the best place to host information on locally important topics and subjects, and this is how I've been using it lately. I just recently got Joseph H. Allen to GA level, yet nobody outside Rensselaer County (or even just the town of Brunswick) would have even the slightest interest in the man; however he is historically significant to locals. Whereas we have a superintendent here that has garnered (without question) state-wide notoriety for this issue (this issue has been everywhere for me). Basically, what I'm saying is because this is "controversial", we get a significant amount of concern on the article where as other people not notable but to a town level are completely left alone. Just an observation on my part. upstateNYer 21:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the point exactly. If an article is the least bit controversial, then the people that are on the side that dislike it will come out and, almost always, try to vote delete or break down the keep votes with whatever policies they can, because they don't like the subject. That's how things work on Wikipedia and why I feel that it is one of the major failings of making the project work. Everyone here is biased one way or another, instead of looking at the subject neutrally and rating it based on the sources and how policy would apply to those sources.

        And I also have no doubt that the fact that Jimbo voted on here is swaying people's votes, either one way or another. He is too important of a person for his vote not to influence the AfD as a whole. I know he isn't doing it on purpose, but the fact remains that anything he does in a discussion like this drastically curves the result. It's inevitable.

        I am also rather suspicious about the fact that it was Guy, who voted Delete here, that informed Jimbo about this. It is not enough to be called canvassing, but it is still highly suspicious. SilverserenC 22:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

        • The fact that Wikipedia may or may not be the correct place to host articles of people with limited national appeal or the fact that Guy left a note on Jimbo's page do anything to make the sourcing on this acceptable. The only sources that discuss Eric Ely in depth are hosted by his employer. Everything else is boils down to tangential mentions in articles about other things. AniMate 22:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's good to have someone of Jimbo's experience in the debate. And it's implausible in the extreme that he would bias his view because anyone asked him his opinion - even someone so illustious as JzG. And of course, loads of people read Jimbo's talk page, so this is hardly a very directed canvass. Please address the issues with the article. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • As far as I'm concerned, public school districts in New York State are reliable sources. Most will host information (that is correct, legal, and indisputable) that other RSs will not. My district, for example, is small, so little mention is ever made in any local newspapers. Schenectady, thankfully, has its own paper, so its district is covered in more detail, however nothing can compare to district newsletters and the district website when it comes to information on a school district and its dealings. Obviously an issue so specific (reliable sources relating to New York public school districts) isn't covered here by policy, however, take it from an expert that these institutions are the most transparent in New York State government and their information is more than reliable. upstateNYer 22:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • In your expert opinion, are school districts independent third party sources? They may be honest, but I'm fairly certain in this case they are not independent or a third party source. AniMate 03:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • This, unfortunately, is where the policies of Wikipedia impinge upon its own progress. Unfortunately, most times, school district related information (at least in New York) comes only from the school district itself. If these policies are to be followed to the letter, our coverage of the topic will be disparagingly incomplete. upstateNYer 03:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • If the information is notable, won't independent third parties pick it up? This is part of Wikipedia's notability-testing infrastructure. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That's my point, that local information is many times not picked up. I'm not questioning that he's at least notable on a state level for the scandal, but his general biography won't really be picked up because his law-abiding history isn't exactly newsworthy, however it is encyclopedic (and necessary) in the article. I'm pretty impressed the Bearian was able to find as much as he did. That said, try to write an article on a mid-size to small school district in New York without using sources from the district itself. In general, it's a flaw in our policies and is much more general than just BLP. upstateNYer 23:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've created the article Schenectady City School District. Unfortunately, most of the best information is currently not available because the New York State Education Department's website on school report cards is down (and has been for a month) while they update last year's stats. Not sure why they have to take the site down to upload new documents, but it seems they prefer this backwards system. Will be updating accordingly a bit later. There was a bit of a scandal by a board member last summer in which he (and his wife, who's a teacher at the school) had pictures posted on Facebook of them doing kegstands at their son's graduation party. It's an interesting district, to say the least. upstateNYer 18:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment UpstateNYer: Good job on Joseph H. Allen. Allen is dead and is not covered under WP:BLP1E. Is that fair? I’m not seeing hypocrisy here. Deciding what is sufficiently notable and encyclopedic is a bit like I know it when I see it, where U.S. Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart pointed out that is rather difficult at times to *define* hard-core pornography, but added “I know it when I see it.” In this case, Joseph H. Allen is a now-dead, historical figure. When I look at that wood-cutting-like picture and read the article’s lead, it strikes me as an encyclopedic article that is well done. It’s difficult to buttress such an opinion by citing existing Wikipedia policies. But let me give this example: If we had an article on—say—some city councilman who was caught dressed in drag in freeway restroom engaged in lewd conduct with someone, and a policeman let him off because of who he was, that might very well be big, scandalous news somewhere (but not nation wide). Moreover, more people will likely know about the city councilman in drag it than will ever know about Joseph H. Allen. Like Justice Potter, if I use my old *common sense-o-meter*, I can tell that Joseph H. Allen is an article that is a welcome addition to Wikipedia and rightly belongs in a fine encyclopedia; the dude wearing nylons and a bra inside a rest stop outside of Walla Walla Washington doesn’t. If some future wikipedian wants to write about the guy 115 years after he died, then—for some reason—it might be encyclopedic then. Greg L (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the moment the guy drops dead, this article, should it be deleted, could be restored? Is there a time limit as to when it would be safe to rewrite the article? In time, this scandal will still be locally notable, and it's most definitely going to be a learning situation for the state and how school boards and school districts run (see Roslyn School District on Long Island, the after effects of which led all school board members in the state to have to have 6 hours of training to stay on the job - something that should have been required starting 50 years ago). That's why I have minor issues with a number of the policies here. That's where I see the hypocrisy in some ways. upstateNYer 01:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah… pretty much. The key is the “LP” in WP:BLP. If he drops dead and, 120 years from now, some wikipedian who zooms around standing atop a Back To the Future hoverboard digs up some info on Ely and marvels at how corrupt our society was back in these times (or fallout/plutonium-free it was), and thinks the subject is instructive and notable, it might well one-day be an encyclopedic topic in 2130—just as Joseph H. Allen is today. Right now, the Ely affair is clearly newsworthy and of intense local interest. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper, let alone the Schenectady Daily Gazette. Greg L (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually WP:BLP1E, which is more accurately referred to as WP:BIO1E, doesn't distinguish between the living and the dead. That's why we don't have articles about non-notable murder victims. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though, with most people, the likelihood they will generate future RS coverage by their actions that raises their profile -- a consideration under WP:BLP1E -- tends to dip slightly after they expire.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You didn't really answer my question though. You keep referencing 100 years from now. I'm not. Once he's dead, it's no longer a BLP. What is policy in that case? Is there a min time period to wait before we can have at the article writing again? The fact that he's alive doesn't really take away from the fact that he seems notable to me. The difference between pulse and no pulse shouldn't dictate the difference between article and no article. upstateNYer 04:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • UpstateNYer, there appear to be two to four governing policies. Here are links that take you to the precise, salient verbiage: WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:Notability. The objective is to avoid filling up Wikipedia with current events unless they receive persistent national or worldwide coverage.

    Note our Lloyd R. Woodson article. It survived this AfD because—in part—it was clear that this claim in the article: …received national attention… was true and was supported by evidence in the form of copious national citations spanning quite a period of time. I suggest you visit the Woodson AfD and study the arguments used there to defend it; perhaps some will apply favorably to this case. Please take particular note of the 14:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC) post by Fiftytwo thirty as it lays out a thoughtful list of tests the article passed.

    Be mindful though, that an earlier incarnation of the Lloyd R. Woodson article failed to survive this first AfD because—at that time—it did not demonstrably pass the tests of WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:Notability.

    Ely’s keeling over and assuming room temperature is not the key, enabling distinction here. In all likelihood, the “Ely incident”, a hundred years after he dies, will still not be considered to be a notable event worthy of inclusion in any encyclopedia in ca. 2145. The only way for Ely to get into Wikipedia now, that I can see, is for some new event surrounding the scandal to blow up onto the national stage, or for him to become notable for something else. Greg L (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would debate your last sentiment and send you back to my reference to the Roslyn School District above. The State Ed Department is very much a reactionary group. Laws and Commissioner's regulations may very well be written to keep this from happening in the future. upstateNYer 23:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up here in the upper left-hand corner of the country, I’ll keep an eye peeled for such a development on the national news. Once again, I genuinely hate voting “delete” on these things; you and others did a good job. Happy editing in the future. Greg L (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The news coverage indicates that this is a newsworthy event, but I don't think it is an encyclopedic topic. Peacock (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. That news coverage you refer to -- do you believe the sources that it appears in are not reliable sources? Or are not independent of Ely? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment References to WP:POLITICIAN are in my mind irrelevant to this discussion. The subject of the article is not a politician and never has been. Superintendents in New York are chosen by their respective boards of education, in a similar way that university presidents are chosen by a board of trustees or that a CEO is chosen by a board of directors. They are not politically appointed positions nor are they elected positions. The board of ed is a collection of elected individuals from a given district, however the process is non-political. No political parties are represented and the board members are not paid. They serve as volunteers and the superintendents serve as CEOs of their districts. upstateNYer 04:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I don't understand at all why that policy is being referenced by so many people. It has absolutely nothing to do with the article. He's not holding any sort of political position. School superintendant is not political. SilverserenC 23:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being guilty of restating what others have said, this person does not satisfy Wikipedia's well-defined notability guidelines. In simply doing his job as the superintendent of a school district, there has been controversy that is related to the district, not Ely per se. I am impressed with the number of references, however almost all of them deal with the district, not Ely. Truthanado (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant public figure, head of a major school district, ample coverage in press and other sources. He crossed over from being a 1-event person when the coverage extended to his job search, which reflects, IMO, a strong interest in him personally on the part of the popular press. RayTalk 21:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Decent article, well sourced, and not about a politician so half the comments here are invalid. Easily passes notability - no more or less notable than many non-politicians, like Jim Wales for example, who also has an article yet is only famous for one thing. Weakopedia (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jimmy Wales is of course famous internationally. Eric Ely appears not to be widely known. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Ely appears to be well known in Upstate New York, Pennsylvania, Montana, Ohio, and Masachusetts. What more do you want, Kansas? Bearian (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice of you to ask ;-) One concern was that your work would be wasted, but with the Wikinews idea, this is not an issue. What I want in any article (and a BIO in particular) is a subject which generates sufficient ongoing interest to ensure the article can't be corrupted while no one is looking. My concerns in this particular case are that his publicity relates to his job, and not to himself. If he takes a lower profile job (he has apparently been considering moving), will there be any interest in him any more? If someone vandalises the article, will anyone notice? Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the scandal is not going away anytime soon - the coverage continued today and he is the issue in the campaign culminating in May. Secondly, I know that I am watching this article, and I am sure that others, are too. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - a good AfD debate is good for that. But what about in 5 years time? Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think the families of the four girls who committed suicide due to bullying in Ely's schools will recall him in five years. I think Steve Raucci will remember him while he sits in prison five years from now. I suspect, from my experience as a litigator, that the lawsuits against the SCSD will still be dragging on for years to come. The candidates running "against him" now will be up for re-eelction in 2015. Once notable, a person is always notable. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Streater--I said above that I don't see this !vote as a policy question, but rather as the application of existing policy to the article at hand. I fear your suggestion, as interesting as it is, takes us off course. It doesn't appear to me to be an application of existing policy, but rather a suggestion as to a change in policy. This isn't the place for that, I would submit. If you do want to change policy in that manner, the policy guideline would be the place to go. And if you would do so, I would suggest that--instead of substituting your and other editors' guesses as to how many views the page will have in x years' time, you use real-world view info (as in, if the page has not been viewed by x viewers in y weeks, then it should be deleted). At this AfD, however, I would hope that you would adhere to existing policy, and not vote !delete for reasons other than non-conformity to existing policies.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One reason I state reasons for my views is so the closing Admin can give them due weight. I do feel that, like the Bill of Rights, policy is not exhaustively defined on those pages. I take the point above about timescales, and the usual looking backwards nature of my approach. There is of course a difference between notability and notoriety. We wouldn't want to become a sensationalist tabloid (is that a UK term)? Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't taking you to task for stating your reasons for your views. I find that laudable. With all due respect, though, I believe that reasons not based on existing stated policy should be weighed far less by the closing admin than those based on existing stated policy. Which, I believe, is in accord with policy.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your concern. I still think that out of honesty I have to state my reasons. It is always easier to keep your head down, but where would WP be now if everyone did that? Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos, once again. I admire that. And I hope you don't get too lonely, in your travels in these parts.  ;-) --Epeefleche (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I too am surprised by those that talk about applying policy/guidelines regarding politicians to this article about a non-politician while at the same time I see AfDs regarding mayors (an actual political position) close-out as Keep even when they are mayor's of cities of smaller population than that covered by the Schenectady School District (one city I saw was 50,000). I'd like to point out that the Schenectady City School District is the second largest school district (and largest city school district) in the 1 million+ person Capital District of the state of NY, I'd be surprised if it wasnt in the top 20 largest school districts in entire state. Would the mayor of a city of 75,000 people be put up for deletion? Would the sources be any better? Probably not, and those mayor articles I see routinely being kept are heavily skewed to local newspapers and the city website and press releases. Please tell me what I'm missing that makes a mayor inherently notable but a superintendant not, even though those in favor of deleting here have been banding around the politician guidelines.Camelbinky (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even without the one news event that got massive news media coverage, this person would still be considered notable. He gets coverage for other things, before the scandal took place. Dream Focus 20:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is journalism/blogging, not encyclopedia writing. --JN466 12:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have not included, in the article, any of our opinions. Every sentence or clause is referenced to secondary sources. How is that journalism or blogging? Bearian (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Practically all the sources are primary sources, local papers, or blogs. The article is focused on a single controversy, with a disjointed smattering of random mentions of the guy ("In March 2009, Ely contracted with Schenectady mayor Brian Stratton to share fuel services with the city.") which do not help to make the article more encyclopedic, or less in breach of WP:BLP1E or WP:NOTNEWS, but just make it more odd and stalkery. I am sorry for the work you have put into this, but this is a quite negative article about a marginally notable person, who as far as I can tell hasn't even broken the law, and we should apply Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. --JN466 04:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it "clear case"? Many of the sources were written before Raucci was convicted in March 2010. Several of the sources are new this week. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apart from the one event in question, this person doesn't seem to be any more notable than the average school superintendent. I could probably piece together a Wikipedia biography on the local superintendent by digging through isolated articles in the local paper, but that would constitute original research by synthesis. I think we fall into that trap when we synthesize "biographies" on people who have received no real biographical coverage from reliable sources, and who have only been covered in the context of specific incidents in which they were involved or alleged to be involved. *** Crotalus *** 17:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crotalus, I accept your first argument as legitimate, although we disagree on the outcome of that. Was Ely notable before People v. Raucci? Will he probably be notable in five years from now? I think yes, on both points, as may be seen in the article. Reasonable people can disagree, as noted above, and the closing admin may very well tilt your way. I have never argued that all school superintents are notable, cf. Dr. Edward Costa. On the other hand, I can't see where there is even a sentence of synthesis. Heck, if a student handed this article in to me, I would give him or her a C, because there is hardly a speck of original thought at all. WP:SYNTH concerns piecing together two thoughts, and creating a conclusion from that. Perhaps the only synthesis I can see objectively is the implication that he was considered an expert in budget matters until two months ago. However, I do not think that is much of a stretch. He was called to testify before the New York State Assembly Committee on Education. He created a presentation about how to get a school budget passed, to share with other school superintendents. The local radio, TV, and newspapers sought him out for his opinion on educational budgets. He made sure the media reported that he disciplined a cheating student in the same National news cycle as the story broke. Ely has spent four years striving to become a well-known figure, an expert on budgets, and has been compensated by his district ($189,000 per annum) in good part for that expertise. I can't see how that is the stretch of thought prohibited by synthesis of sources, but again, some sysop will have to make that decision. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all unusual for superintendents to make six-figure salaries (the local papers in my region report the superintendents in several neighboring districts each make over $200,000 a year, and this is not in an area with a particularly high cost of living). Nor is it unusual for them to do managerial-type stuff. That's what they are there for! Again, I don't see how doing relatively mundane budgetary stuff, which is part of a superintendent's normal job responsibility, is notable. *** Crotalus *** 20:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Crotalus--The main thrust of your rationale for your !vote above was with regard to your assertion of synthesis. Bearian responded to that assertion; rather convincingly I thought. I'm not sure I see your immediately-above comment as responsive to his remarks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:02, 17 April 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 as per consensus and the absence of deletion requests beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seymour Itzkoff

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

This is an under-sourced biography of a living person which focuses almost exclusively on one controversial facet of his work. There do not seem to be sufficient high quality sources to cover the less controversial aspects, leading me to conclude that the article is of marginal notability. He has requested deletion, and I pass that request on in good faith. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • * Delete- as per subjects request, a couple of weak looking citations have been added by the creator but there doesn't appear to be enough coverage to support a decent well rounded biography. Perhaps a book review, if one of his books is notable enough for a wikipedia article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I originally created this stub because Dr. Itzkoff is a key figure in the mid-1990's race and intelligence debate, due to his book The Decline of Intelligence in America and the influence of his other works on this topic. Adding more info now. Jokestress (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here is an interesting review of Itzkoff's book and two other books from the New York Times in 1994. -- Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Book reviews are at another location. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I misunderstood. I probably shouldn't even be contributing to this discussion because I'm simply not an experienced enough Wikipedia person. But I'll throw another two cents at the discussion. I've seen many articles in Wikipedia, in particular living actors, whose contributions are far less than Itzkoff's. What I would do is just pare back the article and include as complete a bibliography as possible. Of course, if Jokestress adds enough information to satisfy everyone . . . -- Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's a detailed biographic profile of Dr. Itzkoff in The science of human diversity by Richard Lynn 2001, pp. 417-427. I just added it to the article. Itzkoff has been a cause célèbre for academic freedom for publishing controversial work on intelligence. One of the recently removed external links was heavily indebted to the Lynn biography. Because the vast majority of Dr. Itzkoff's writings on intelligence were controversial in some way or another (especially funding received from the Pioneer Fund), it's not really accurate to say it is "one facet" of his work. Most of his books made the same general assertions about heritability of intelligence. Jokestress (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , highly notable as an academic and an author. Of course, deal with in a balanced way, but NPOV is corrected by editing , not deletion. We need a suitable source for an external link to a reliable CV--I can;t find one posted at Smith. His work is too well known & too controversial for him to be considered as borderline notable--and even if he were, we would be able to decline his request for deletion--I would do that in almost all cases, because its almost always simply due to dissatisfaction with the way the article is written. If the reasons are valid, we fix the article. As for his notability, notability of a writer is shown by reviews of their work, so I do not see why the NYT reviews are irrelevant. it is of course probable that this book is also independently notable. We don't have to choose between an article on it and on him, because he has done other work as well. For judging notability under WP:PROF also the degree to which someone is recognized as an expert is shown by citations to his work, and when possible more specific ways to show its recognition, such as book reviews, so the reviews are significant there also. WorldCCat includes reviews of many of his books in major biological and social science journals [2], and they should be added to the article. He has 12 books that are each in over 300 libraries--1000 for his best known one.
And fwiw, I think the bias in Wikipedia towards including actors rather than academics, is less the different standards of notability, but the interests of people writing articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the request for deletion and the point from the subject of the article that the biography focused only on a small area of his work therefore gave a poor reflection of his work and as a whole the stub understated him and so was demeaning to his reputation was a good point. I know editors are here waxing lyrical about him and a few citations have been added, but we are talkng about an article that has existed for four years and last year got only three edits and in four years there has never been one discussion on the article talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Itzkoff appears to have been well-known mainly for what makes him controversial. Talking about other aspects of his life, other than as background, would serve no purpose. I don't see anything demeaning in the article except to the extent that a reader who doesn't agree with his point of view might find his writings offensive. But what matters is if his work is misrepresented. A person could become famous for inventing one item. He may then never invent anything again in his life or do anything noteworthy, but he's still famous for the single invention. And, naturally, an article on that person is going to focus on that invention, not on the fact that every morning he got up and had bacon for breakfast. I also don't see how the lack of discussion and edits matters. Itzkoff's controversial works were written a long time ago. Apparently, he hasn't done much of any note since. That doesn't mean that what he did before isn't noteworthy, and his objections should only matter if they are well-taken. -- Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments fully support the position and the request from the subject for deletion. I take subject requests quite strongly and give them fair weight, we have a duty of care to living people and I support this well-taken request. Personally I know little about his work and I dislike controversy and find in a BLP supporting inclusion because of some controversy is never going to create a well rounded biography. If this article is actually not a biography but an article about a controversy then it would be better titled as such. The reference to the lack of any discussion and lack of edits to the actual article were referenced to reflect the reality that the article has not been improved and that there is little interest in it and little chance of it being improved imo, all of which supports the subjects request for deletion. IMO if wikipedia is to have an article about a person it has a duty of care to create a good article, especially in regards to a living person, in this case the length of time the article has existed and the poor quality of it and the apparent lack of interest of wikipedia editors to improve the article and the subjects request for deletion as regards all encourage me to support his request.Off2riorob (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an article about a single controversy (like a scandal or some unique event that has little to do with the players and more to do with the nature of the scandal). This is an article about a person who wrote many controversial works and was apparently involved with others who had similar ideas and wrote similar works. I'm not sure what would make the article "well-rounded." Itzkoff's objections would be more sympathetic if he cited other "facets" of his life and his works that he believes are noteworthy, should have been included, but yet were not. Otherwise, it just sounds like someone who doesn't want the notoriety, or doesn't like the wording of the article, or subjectively believes that his eating bacon every morning is more important than others do. I also think that Wikipedia does a service to its readers by including the article because when you search the web, almost all you find about the man are his books. The article gives some context to the person who wrote those books. I don't agree that the article is of "poor quality," and I disagree that the lack of editing and discussion means there is little interest in it, just that there's not much to add. I have no idea how Wikipedia tracks the "interest" readers have in its biographical articles. Clearly, some biographical subjects are going to be more interesting to a wider audience than others. That doesn't mean that the ones that interest fewer readers are not worthy of inclusion. -- Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I give a fair bit of weight to any good faith request from a subject for deletion, all editors are different in this respect which is what make the wiki such a diverse place, some editors see the wiki as a place to add whatever they want irrespective of any control at all and irrespective of any possible harm the content may do to people. All points are valuable when considered in regards to policy and guidelines. Here are the article viewing figures which imo are mostly bots. Off2riorob (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far, no one has identified the "possible harm." Thanks for the pointer to the viewing statistics, but if you compare them to Richard Hernstein's, for example, Hernstein's are even less. Now it's true that Hernstein is dead, but he died at the same time that Itzkoff wrote what were arguably his most controversial works. Thus, it makes sense that there's less interest in Hernstein and Itzkoff now. However, that doesn't mean there isn't historical interest in both. To be fair, Itzkoff has published more books since 1994, although I don't think he's published much, since the article first appeared. In any event, a more complete bibliography should allay any concerns in that area. -- Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If kept, then the article should include all his "works"(and I am a deletionist/minimalist for disclosure), not some "selected" listing created by whom exactly, with what point/agenda in mind.--Tom (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bunch more of his works. It's a tedious process, looking each one up and doing it. You're welcome to add more. :-) I don't think anyone inserted his works with any agenda in mind, probably more just what he was most famous for (that the creator knew about). If you look back at the history of the article, that seems to be the case. -- Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This (3after3's comment) strikes me as a bit of an WP:ALLORNOTHING argument. It is not usually the case that we list all works of an academic in an article about them; that would be long and tedious and unencyclopedic. Rather, as you say, it is usually the more famous/wel-cited ones that are selected. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the more famous/wel-cited ones How is that determined and by whom? As I disclosed, I would have no problem including...NONE of them :) Seriously, my reasoning was based on the discussion that the listing of his works might have been determined based on some bias or agenda, anyways, I have no strong opinion either way and defer to others to figure it out, good luck, --Tom (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked carefully at Itzkoff's specific case, but there are several ways of determining which publications to include on a "selected publications" list: (1) best would be an obituary or retrospective of the academic's work published by someone else that makes such a selection; (2) the academic in question may have made and published a selected list him or herself; (3) Google scholar or similar citation services can be used to pick out the most frequently cited works; (4) not a very good method, but better than nothing, is to list the works that are notable enough to be mentioned as important contributions in other topic-specific Wikipedia articles. The trouble with listing all of them is that most academics have a lot and it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The trouble with listing none of them is that it would be avoiding the major cause of the academic's notability; it would be like having an article about a politician that didn't mention the offices he or she had held. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...fair enough...--Tom (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on this, but #1-obit is out becauase Itzkoff is still alive. #2 is out, or at least I haven't been able to find any, and apparently Itzkoff isn't providing one. I realize that my analogies to the entertainment industry may not be perfect, but articles on movie directors list all of their films, not the just the "important" ones. The more important ones might be discussed in the body of the article, which, in Itzkoff's case, is already true. Plus, although I don't think all of Itzkoff's works have been listed, most have, and the list isn't terribly long. Finally, in Itzkoff's particular case, some of his works are probably not controversial at all, whereas others are. Therefore, to the extent it matters, perhaps Itzkoff's objections (whatever they really are) would be at least partly met by including the non-controversial works as well as the controversial ones. -- Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 11 April 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) 12:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals from "The New Dinosaurs: An Alternate Evolution"

AfDs for this article:
List of animals from "The New Dinosaurs: An Alternate Evolution" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A complete fork of The New Dinosaurs: An Alternative Evolution, has no content other than the names of many dinosaurs that were featured in this book, no assertion that this list is in any way notable or anything more than WP:OR. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete article fails notability per WP:BKD. the specific contents of this book have not had any notable discussions, only the book in general. WP is not a content index for even highly notable books, unless the book is discussed at this level of detail. (say, the bible)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Author does not appear to have grasped the need for WP:RS Plutonium27 (talk) 11:57, 14 April 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) 12:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Can't Be Tamed

AfDs for this article:
I Can't Be Tamed (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 attempted to redirect the article to Miley Cyrus, but it was reverted. The only thing confirmed about this album is the name and the month it is expected to be released. So, per WP:BALL and WP:HAMMER, I propose it be redirected until there's a confirmed track list. liquidluck✽talk 18:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed, it is definitely to early for this article. Everything on the page, aside from the date and album title, looks to be unreferenced rumors/speculations. CloversMallRat (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until there's more confirmation about the album. Spin into a separate article again when there's enough to actually have one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL, everything is pretty much a rumor. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All rumor. Only source in article says (verbatim) "Miley has confirmed that her follow-up to the 2008 release, ‘Breakout,’ will hit stores this June. We’ll be the first to give you updates and any other info on her upcoming album!", which isn't enough to base an article on. Nothing reliable found.—Kww(talk) 01:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Worth noting that the redirect was undone by Juhhhuh, a sock of a banned editor Brexx (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx/Archive).—Kww(talk) 04:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've deleted this before. Another over-zealous pop music jumping-the-gun situation before any real confirmation has been made. I'd suggest protecting its possible recreation too, along with any variations like "I Can't Be Tamed (album)" or "I Can't Be Tamed (Miley Cyrus album)". - eo (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER (GregJackP (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - Aside from the fact that Miley confirmed the release date and title of the album, nothing else is official. Nothing. We should delete until at least one more source of information is released, such as the album cover or the tracklisting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkim4007 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 15 April 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) 12:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idol Curse

Idol Curse (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 seems to be a made-up fan term and the article is original research, an orphan, does not have reliable sources and does not pass WP:GNG. There is one provided source of a review of Allison Iraheta's CD that using the term "Idol Curse" in the title, but then neither the term or the word "curse" is used anywhere in the text. Aspects (talk) 17:49, 10 April 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) 12:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cannon Game

The Cannon 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)

Twice prodded (first by me, second time by another editor); prods removed every time. No references added. No explanations ever given. The article about the "cannon game" is non-notable per our standards. Request AfD delete. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 17:22, 10 April 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. Peter 21:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User Unified Azerbaijan

User Unified Azerbaijan (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)

Userbox in article space. Same userbox already exists at Template:User Unified Azerbaijan WOSlinker (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. kedadial 17:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (T3), per nomination. I've placed the CSD tag. TheFeds 20:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G5. Userboxes obviously don't belong in the mainspace; this needs to go ASAP. It is eligible for speedy deletion under G5 because its creator was a sockpuppet of a blocked user, Pournick (talk · contribs). So tagged. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:36, 10 April 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) 12:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

L2HAC

L2HAC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism. DimaG (talk) 16:43, 10 April 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) 12:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keichu Do

Keichu Do (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 non-notabile martial arts organization. This article has been tagged since 2006 as needing citations. No indications of notability. Only reference I could find was an article in Black Belt magazine written by a student of Keichu Do's founder (Karl Marx), who later received the title of Soke from Marx. Papaursa (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find lots of negative stuff on blogs, but I can't find reliable sources about this martial art. Actually, most of what I find is about the founder, not the art. Astudent0 (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to be notable. Incidentally, the sole reference (Bullshido) given in the article is now here. Janggeom (talk) 03:33, 17 April 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 as per consensus and the absence of deletion requests beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Young (documentarian)

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

Does not comply with creative bio inclusion guidelines. No awards etc., Wikidas© 15:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You may feel free to ask over at WikiProject Films in case you belive I am wrong, but a fimmaker gains his notability through his works. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Information in relation to the subject of the article should be confirmed by good reliable sources. No sources give any information about him personally as I can see. If on only one film got an award he falls under ONE EVENT policy. Wikidas© 21:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Making dozens of documentaries is not a "one event"... and BLP1E is guideline and not policy. I would also respectfully suggest you please study WP:GNG, and then re-read WP:Notability (people), paying close attention to WP:ANYBIO. Young was the recipient of BOTH an Emmy Award and a National Award from the American Film Institute for his film Dancing Outlaw, and "was cited by the Oxford American as one of the ten best southern documentaries of all time". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Coverage does not necessarily mean "personal coverage". As MQS point out a film maker gains notability by his films and this one has it. And WP:ANYBIO is not talking about a single event.--Sodabottle (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability established. Evalpor (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added even more sources. Because of his awards and recognition in the media, he breezes through notability. SilverserenC 04:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of awards to establish notability, as someone who has received a notable award or honor, and because his work has received extensive coverage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Article needs some work, such as filling out the Background section, but it easily meets notability. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:28, 13 April 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 as per consensus and the absence of deletion requests beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomex

AfDs for this article:
Bloomex (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 original nomination by User:Dimitri LokhoniaRankiri (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC):[reply]

hello, my name is Dimitri Lokhonia and I am a president of Bloomex. The article has incorrect information on company structure, business, history and fulfillment. Our PR department wrote it originally in 2008 for advertisement purposes. Besides I do not think that company on such small size has to be on Wikipedia. Another interesting fact: CliffC is adding bad publicity the same day negative article appeared online. He maybe an editor , but not an independent one. In addition if you look into discussion history majority of editors were banned and the remaining palefist and CliffC some some sort of interest of publishing incorrect information on Bloomex.

I want to ask Wikipedia community to delete this article. Sincerely Dimitri Lokhonia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitri Lokhonia (talk • contribs) 14:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Another short note: The editor who ruled to keep the article( Pastor Theo) was banned as well. I will appreciate the attention on this matter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitri Lokhonia (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC) [3][reply]

  • Keep. Continuing coverage in reliable secondary sources (March 01, 2008, April 9, 2010) suggests notability. — Rankiri (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the company appears to be notable and covered by many secondary sources. However, if there is any information in the article which the nominator can prove to be false it should be deleted. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete(duplicate vote) Ownership information is incorrect. Fulfillment model is not correctly described. Flower delivery business is only part of Bloomex business which includes bouquet distribution and wholesale distribution. Obviously as any internet company we have customer service issues, but to have Controversy section bigger than main article does not look right for me. Besides I do not agree to the fact that Controversy uses journalist blog as a source of information. Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be notable and sourced. mauler90 (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet the notability guidelines, and has sources. I see no reason for deletion of this article, which seems to be more about removing controversies from the internet so that the company will not have bad publicity. Article could use a history section. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject has received substantial, independent coverage in multiple major media outlets (including several Toronto Star columns, CBC online article and CBC Marketplace television documentary feature). Nominator admits to conflict of interest, and should therefore consult WP:COI. TheFeds 20:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks notable to me, nominator might consider reviewing WP:OWN as well. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets our notability guidelines. It's ironic that in the first AfD both the closing non-Admin and the nominator have been blocked as sockpuppets, but there were four good Keep !vote and none for deletion. As for the editors of the article who were banned, see the SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flowerman11/Archive. More COI and sock puppetry. Dougweller (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nominator is advised to read WP:LUC. Clearly the article merits inclusion per sources. -- Atama頭 00:41, 14 April 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) 19:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shukan Jitsuwa

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

No evidence of notability - The article provides no significant coverage in reliable sources and has been tagged as unsourced since October 2008. EuroPride (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep ...and the Crusade continues... Highly notable Japanese tabloid. I suppose I'll have to do some sourcing to prevent the lazy, biased deletion of this. (Note: the nominator has been on a Crusade for weeks nominating articles with no indication of attempting to find sourcing.) Dekkappai (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I planned on doing work on other projects today, but because of this editor's moral-, national- or whatever-bigotry, my time is hijacked. But nobody gives a fuck, right? Business as usual at Bias-through-deletion-pedia. Dekkappai (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 69 hits at English-biased Google news. Note: Japanese news media regularly removes stories from online archives. There are no doubt hundreds of print references to this publication. Dekkappai (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Here Asahi Shimbun quotes Shukan Jitsuwa as a source for the death of Hiroshi Okamoto, first president of Nihon Journal. Gee, is that red-linked? And would a comparable person in the Anglosphere be red-linked? Could it be that if it were started, some "concerned editor" would get it deleted rather than working on it? And that the comparable Anglosphere person would have too many defenders to succeed in deletion? Dekkappai (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Passes points 2 & 3 of Wikipedia:Notability (media): "have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history" (over 50 years history, available on any newstand in Japan and many Japanese sources in the US), "are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area" (quoted above by Asahi Shimbun). Anyone with knowledge of Japanese media should be able to expand and improve the article greatly. I trust that will happen, and EN-WP not become further biased by this article's deletion (hah!). I return to my own areas of editing interest. And if there's anyone here I haven't properly offended, I apologise. Dekkappai (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please calm down and take another look at WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Your accusations are baseless and your assumptions are unreasonable. The entire claim of non-notability could easily be dismissed with a single WP:RS source or two. Sources in Japanese language are acceptable as well, and you are more than welcome to provide them for our consideration. Similarly, if you feel that Hiroshi Okamoto can pass WP:BIO, feel free to go ahead and start the article yourself. Just don't forget to source it, for your own sake. — Rankiri (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your suggestion is polite and appears sensible and reasonable, but I suspect it depends on a false premise: that the internet contains a significant amount of "quality" (citeable) Japanese-language content. Unfortunately, if you compare what's best in English on the web and what's best in Japanese, you soon realize that the latter isn't merely less in quantity, it's way lower in quality too. Indeed, I have trouble not saying that, taken as a whole, the Japanese language web (Japanese-language Wikipedia of course included) is crap. Looking for something like the searchable archive of the Guardian? Forget the idea, no such thing exists. Japanese newspapers are dismal to start with (see Freeman, Closing the Shop, Princeton Univ Press) and the anodyne articles that they do post on their websites are rapidly removed thereafter. So effectively what you're asking for is library research. This request may be a reasonable one, but anyway the web is unlikely to suffice. -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that a country that ranks third in the number of Internet users, and whose language is the fourth most-used language on the Internet, doesn't have any digital book libraries and newspaper archives of its own? What about 300+ results for "週刊実話" on Google Books alone? Are they all unrelated? Besides, I never said that the potential sources had to be available through the Internet. Right now the article has no references, online or offline. — Rankiri (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I am not saying that. Incidentally, one reason why the use of the internet in Japan is so high is the fact that most text messaging via phone is in fact via email. A high percentage of what's on the web is bloggery and mere chitchat. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Doesn't meet the following Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline criteria: there isn't significant coverage is more than a trivial mention (at least in English and German... maybe an editor from Japan could add sources in Japanese) and there're no secondary sources showing objective evidence of notability. I don't care if it is a nudity magazine or a science magazine, articles need sources. If an editor adds references about the magazine (not references about information published in the magazine) I would change my mind but until then I don't this article belongs here.--Karljoos (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just added some sources - including those secondary sources (in English) showing notability that other posters just can't find! Took me 5 minutes on Google. There should be no question of deleting this article, this is a well established (50+ years old) and well known magazine. It is obviously a stub and could use some more work but it is definitely a Keep. Wikipedia would be better served by editors who were more interested in doing a little research and adding to articles instead of dismissing or trying to cleanse things they dislike or don't understand. My rant for the day. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution. The sources in English that you added mention Shukan Jitsuwa, but none of them provides substantial information that helps to establish the notability of the subject.--Karljoos (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"instead of dismissing or trying to cleanse things they dislike" - Despite the text above you couldn't resist not assuming good faith or attacking me? EuroPride (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no attack that I can discern, EuroPride. If you can discern one, then perhaps I am insufficiently sensitive to such slights; or, just possibly, you are overly sensitive. -- Hoary (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Karljoos, at least one does not merely mention Shūkan Jitsuwa (I've no idea why it has lost one mora here) but instead clearly gives it as one of a small number of examples of magazines that may appear merely lubricious but that make a significant contribution to the (enfeebled) fourth estate in Japan. -- Hoary (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Demonstrably a significant purveyor of T&A photos, verbal titillation, gossip, trivia, but also news to the male Japanese masses. -- Hoary (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Hoary (for he says it so well). —Quasirandom (talk) 00:38, 17 April 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) 12:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carrolls Winward

Carrolls Winward (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. Show horse with no credible assertion of notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not even a hint of notability. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP PLENTY OF NOTABILITY!! This article is about a legand that showjumping fans loved respect the arts you horrid people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HANZ1335 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I haven't been able to come up with any reliable sources that confirm that this horse is indeed a legend. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources to confirm notability (or even existence). Rami R 07:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No credible assertion of notability. No references provided and no mentions found in search. The creator's own variations on the Macken quote in a separate article raises my suspicions about the veracity of the article. — CactusWriter | needles 07:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If I'd have seen this at CSD, I'd have speedy deleted it as A7. That someone notable bought a horse and said nice things about it is not enough for CSD in my view, and even less of a reason to keep it at AfD. GedUK  07:58, 15 April 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) 12:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matanage

Matanage (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 seems to be a fairly minor game. The article consists mainly of the rules. No assertion of notability or sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:50, 10 April 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) 12:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie McIntyre (entrepreneur)

Jamie McIntyre (entrepreneur) (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)

Two sentence "article" doesn't demonstrate the notability of this Australian millionaire. It asserts that he is the founder and CEO of 21st Century Education, another entity whose notability is suspect Wikipedia-wise. B.Wind (talk) 14:16, 10 April 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) 12:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner (song)

The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner (song) (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)

Album track by Iron Maiden which was never issued as a single, and didn't garner significant attention. Therefore, I don't feel the song warrants its own article. The article was even created with the edit summary "i fuck my self". LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Also note that there was once a slow and inconclusive split discussion, with a comment appearing about once every eight months on average, which may have inspired the creation of this article. Still unnecessary due to repeated info, and that info might have come together after the split discussion, for what it's worth. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:26, 11 April 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) 12:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of DanniGirls

List of DanniGirls (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)

List of winners of a non-notable pornographic award. EuroPride (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is the award non-notable but the website that gives it also does not have its own article. I don't understand why the entertainment industry as a whole, and pornography especially, has such low standards for inclusion here. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable award. Hipocrite (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources of "dannigirls", and no evidence that it is a notable award. We don't have an article for the website, or for "DanniGirl of the Month", and there's no evidence that this one meets notability guidelines either.--BelovedFreak 14:37, 15 April 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) 12:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Geoff

Super Geoff (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)

Fictional character, fails WP:N. Previously declined speedy deletion candidate. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:18, 10 April 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) 12:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formulation (logic)

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

No evidence of notability, no sources Paradoctor (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREDO yields 80+ uses in relevant reference works, but not a single definition. Paradoctor (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This term has no special meaning in mathematical logic (e.g. in the type of logic covered by the Handbook of mathematical logic). If someone did use the term, I would read it either as "form" or as "formalization", depending on context. I do not know if there is some other context where "formulation" has a technical meaning that this article could discuss. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but without prejudice. Thinking about the history of the article and of semantics, that concept is not used, but there is a related concept in the semantics of a formal language, in which two different well-formed formulas could have identical meanings. The selection of the string associated with the meaning could reasonably be called a "Formulation". But we'd still need a reliable source for the name of the concept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is what I would call a "formalization". It's relatively common for the same natural-language sentence to have different formalizations, particularly in constructive mathematics where things that are classically equivalent are no longer constructively equivalent. But "formulation" is not a term of art in that setting. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arthur Rubin 65.46.253.42 (talk) 23:53, 16 April 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) 12:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islam Feruz

Islam Feruz (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)

certainly fails WP:ATH, probably fails WP:N and WP:GNG but I'll not PROD this article and leave it up to others to decide! Steve-Ho (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nom - Fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:GNG, WP:N. EuroPride (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A fourteen year old who has never played professionally, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, and WP:GNG. I would not be surprised to see him become notable in the future, but right now doesn't meet the notability guidlines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Junior internationals generally don't meet WP:ATH. This guy still hasn't played professionally or at senior level for his country. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 18:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this is an unusual case; Feruz has had substantial coverage in the Scottish media because of his background as a Somali immigrant now playing for Scottish youth sides under new rules. Due to this coverage he meets WP:N, which supersedes WP:ATHLETE.[4][5][6][7] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wp:ATHLETE, since he has yet to play for either Celtic or Scotland (he doesn't even have a profile about him on the Celtic website!). It should be noted that, whilst he has had a few articles about him, it's all largely the same thing (how he's taken advantage of a FIFA ruling allowing him to play for Scotland, having been schooled there for five years). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:11, 10 April 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) 12:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable actors without stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame

List of notable actors without stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame (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)

Indiscriminate, unreferenced and woefully incomplete list. Many actors do not have a "star" on this famous street, but the names selected appear to have been picked at random, including a few Broadway legends who barely made any Hollywood films. Warrah (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notations of "Academy Award winner" and "Academy Award nominee" next to most of the names show that Warrah's criticism ("the names selected appear to have been picked at random"), is totally unfounded and ill-considered. There are amazingly obscure and ancient names that received stars, many posthumously, since the Walk was created around 1958, including vaudevillians and silent film actors.
I do acknowledge that Doc Quintana concern has some merit, although not the "indiscriminate" part (see above). This, however, is easily remedied by narrowing the list to Academy Award nominees and winners excluded from the Walk, and even further by limiting it to actors and directors, which are the only names I was going to include anyway. I think this list is an important intersection which should exist as a counter balance to the Walk to show how deficient and capricious the star selection process is. Now it is all about money anyway. The fact that the likes of Ryan Seacrest, Sean Combs and Eric Braeden have stars, while Hume Cronyn, Sydney Greenstreet, Thelma Ritter, Marjorie Main, Warren Beatty, etc. do not (see list) is something that should be publicly acknowledged in an encyclopaedic fashion, which I have tried to do. Perhaps it should also be categorized (i.e. Category:Academy Award winners and nominees without a Hollywood Walk of Fame Star). Whew, that is a long one. I am not sure about categorizing. I will leave that to more experienced and adept editors to opine and decide. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just remembered. I understand the name of the list should also be adjusted in re the above. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redefine. In its current state William Shakespeare and David Garrick would both be eligible for the list. On top of that there must be 1000's of actors with Wikipedia articles that don't have the star. It should be something like List of notable film actors without stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame or List of notable award winning film actors without stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. something lame from CBW 13:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO, invites indiscriminate material. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit so individual intentions are irrelevant when the topic itself has no inherent logical limits. Eusebeus (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I agree that it's possible to list people in this way and the list is interesting, the main purpose of an encylopedia is to give the info straight. Something like this where the info is processed and presented in a way to provoke or entertain the readers is good, but it really belongs somewhere else. You might start with a blog and then sneak in an external link on Hollywood Walk of Fame. Your next step would be to write an article on the topic and get it published somewhere, then add a sentence like, "Many award winning actors have not yet been given stars." and source it to your article. p.s. Why doesn't Shakespeare have a star? He certainly deserves one. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment The author's comment which seemed to imply that one reason for the article is to get these deserving people stars is a clue to me that this isn't really encyclopedic type stuff. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kitfoxxe - with all due respect I did not think that creating this list would get the actors in question stars on the HWOF. You have apparently misinterpreted my comment: "I think this list is an important intersection which should exist as a counter balance to the Walk to show how deficient and capricious the star selection process is". Perhaps this is my fault. The issue does rile me a little and I guess my anger showed, but I didn't ever imagine that the list would have influenced any HWOF decision makers. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that you had done something wrong. If you would like to start a Facebook page on the topic I will become a fan.Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope 70.80.234.196 will withdraw the accusation of WP:SOAP as it is unfounded. Ill-accepted -- indeed, doomed -- as the list is, my intentions were never to violate WP:SOAP and I would like the record to reflect that. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Frankly, I cannot see any point to such a list. Truly great unknowns would be lost in the clutter. Evalpor (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only per WP:NOTDIR, but this list is subjective. What one person deems notable may not be the same for another person. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not because it's a bad topic, but because it's totally unsourced and I have no reason to believe any of it. If Warren Beatty or Cher doesn't have a star, that's something that I'd like to see backed up with some proof. It should be limited to actors who have won an Oscar or an Emmy, rather than "notable" actors, so as to eliminate the subjective nature of this list. (I have a feeling that this is original research-- someone looked at a list of who is on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and then started asking "why isn't ____ on here?" but I find it hard to believe that this isn't discussed in articles about "the walk".

Mandsford (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as indiscriminate information, and because I can see no evidence that not having a star is a notable phenomenon. It seems we could just as easily have "List of notable actors who haven't won an Academy Award", "List of Academy Award winners who haven't won a BAFTA" and so on.--BelovedFreak 14:50, 15 April 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) 12:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Maw

AfDs for this article:
Joe Maw (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 indication of notability, BLP. CynofGavuf 10:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no competition for casting Tracy Beaker Returns. All cast were auditioned from Manchester, Newcastle and London infront of Productions casting Director. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.235.206 (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To anonymous IP 81.137.235.206: You're correct. It was not a contest, but simply a report of him beating "hundreds of youngsters from across the country to win a place in the BBC programme Tracy Beaker Returns". I have struck the "contest" bit above. However, the one role does not meet WP:ENT. When he gets more coverage, I would welcome the article's return. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Maw has recently filmed a short film for Screen Yorkshire called Fawn.[8]See the directors website - [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.235.206 (talk) 12:46, 16 April 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. Originally closed by User:Fishhead2100 on 11 Apr 2010. Reclosing to fix formating. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Irish Amateur

London Irish Amateur (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)

Amateur club. CynofGavuf 10:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment When you put an article up for deletion you put up a valid reason why you are nominating it for deletion. Just saying amateur club is not suitable because some amateur clubs can be notable. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 15:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Poor reason for deletion. If we went according to the nominators explanation, then we should delete Queen's Park F.C. as well. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment is from the creator of the article. CynofGavuf 06:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close per the C of E. I will quickly close this due to a lack of substance when it comes to a suitable reason for his or her nomination. I also left a message on the nominators talk page about giving a better rationale as to why they are nominating this article. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fishead2100 (mr CC above) has taken it upon himself to unilaterally close this AfD within 24 hours. That's entirely un-supported by procedure, so I've reopened it, as appropriate. CynofGavuf 06:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it was such a problem for Fishhead to explain himself, as opposed to just removing the AfD, I'll explain the nomination. It's an amateur team, which doesn't meet the notability criteria for sports teams, it also is written in a promotional tone, using phrases like "We are always keen to welcome newcomers" and "We run 4 adult sides."
There are no references, or other traditional reasons to keep. That Fishead would disagree at all is questionable, but that he would non admin close this so quickly is so obviously wrong, no more comment's required. CynofGavuf 06:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, all that promotion rubbish was vandalism, which i've fixed. I know it's vandalism as it puts them in a higher league before the season has even finished. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:08, 11 April 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.

Newton Robotics Inc

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.

Result: Delete (non-admin closure) as there were no sources to assert notability. As well the article is deleted. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Robotics 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)

No external or reliable sources. CynofGavuf 10:21, 10 April 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.

Newton Research Labs

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.

Result: Delete (non-admin closure) as there were no sources to assert notability. As well the article is deleted. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Research Labs (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 external or reliable sources. CynofGavuf 10:20, 10 April 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. Article still needs a large amount of work, but rough consensus is that it is salvageable and referenceable. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insertion mount machines

Insertion mount machines (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 don't know what this is about. It's not notable and has no references. CynofGavuf 10:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Googling this yields nothing useful at all (despite the name I surprisingly didn't even get any pornographic unrelated hits), it's not clear what the article is about, and there are no sources. Reyk YO! 11:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Fixed reason for why it was put on the deletion list. I added references and links to websites supporting the material on the page. Paly 1 (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This appears to be describing an automated machine used in the production of electronic circuit boards. Surely there must be documentation of these machines in the trade press. At present, the article is poorly referenced, and has some stylistic flaws, but I think there's a reasonable prospect of improvement. TheFeds 22:10, 10 April 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) 12:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of San Jose, CA consulates

List of San Jose, CA consulates (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 real content, San Jose itself doesn't have international ones. CynofGavuf 09:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable interestion of two qualifications. Each nation could have a list of the addresses of their consulates. There could also be a list of consulates in the San Francisco area. The fact that a consulate is located in San Jose is not notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is what is meant by an "indiscriminate" list. However, even if someone tried to make it more than a boring bunch of flags and blue-links, a "list of consulates located in San Jose, California" would never be more than a San Jose directory, there's nothing to be gained by having a world of articles called "list of consulates in the city of _______" Mandsford (talk) 00:42, 11 April 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) 12:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Byrnes

Cameron Byrnes (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)

Not enough sources to indicate notability CynofGavuf 09:50, 10 April 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) 12:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate fusion

Ultimate fusion (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)

WP:NOTCRYSTAL, website linked to by creator does not exist, probable hoax, PROD removed by the creator of the article H8erade (talk) 08:11, 10 April 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flash (DC animated universe)

Flash (DC animated universe) (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 is a creation of original research that pulls information from various Wikipedia articles on comic book characters. Specifically:

With the villains, note that 3 of the sections refer to the same two characters - and alternate universe version of the Flash that was never see on screen and a robot. Both based on "the costumes look the same".

Presenting the character of the Flash along with the 2 "casts" creates the impression that this article is dealing with "show" even though the characters are supposedly limited to Superman: The Animated Series and the Justice League/Justice League Unlimited series.

This and Wonder Woman (DC animated universe) are the latest two in a recurring "bad content" issue where articles are fabricated in this manner. Frankly, on top of the OR issue, they are an unneeded and ill-advised content fork. We have had a number of like content fork lists and articles come through AfD from this editor, the bulk of which have resulted in the removal of the composite articles. This is becoming disruptive - the discovery of new or additional like "articles" after the last batch has been deleted and having to go through the same presentation that "Yes, it's content fork. Yes, it's a bad fork. And yes it is a carbon copy of already existing material." J Greb (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Flash (comics) Doc Quintana (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all the information is already in the right place (where the links go) and this serves no purpose other than to confuse. Dozens of similar articles have been deleted and there should be a moratorium on creating any new ones, as all it is doing is wasting everyone's time (those editing them and those coming along behind and deleting them) - there is a clear consensus that they aren't required and are just unnecessary duplication of existing material (without, it is worth noting, any kind of indication which articles the text is lifted from, something that is required). (Emperor (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having the same information duplicated in different articles is a nightmare - and it looks like it's already in the appropriate places. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:08, 17 April 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Woman (DC animated universe)

Wonder Woman (DC animated universe) (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 is a creation of original research that pulls information from various Wikipedia articles on comic book characters. Specifically:

With the supporting characters, keep in mind that:

  1. "Fury", by name, never appeared in an episode of either Justice League or Justice League Unlimited. It was a character that "resembled" aspects of the two DC Comics characters.
  2. "Nemesis" did not become a "supporting character" for Wonder Woman until mid 2006, just after JLU had aired its last episode.
  3. "Wonder Girl" is a "best guess/fit" character from a throw away scene.
  4. At best, these are "related" characters in the scope of the JL and JLU shows.

And with the supporting characters, keep in mind that the character of "Cyborgirl" never appeared in a JL or JLU episode.

Presenting the character of Wonder Woman along with the 2 "casts" creates the impression that this article is dealing with "show" even though the characters are supposedly limited to the Justice League/Justice League Unlimited series.

This and Flash (DC animated universe) are the latest two in a recurring "bad content" issue where articles are fabricated in this manner. Frankly, on top of the OR issue, they are an unneeded and ill-advised content fork. We have had a number of like content fork lists and articles come through AfD from this editor, the bulk of which have resulted in the removal of the composite articles. This is becoming disruptive - the discovery of new or additional like "articles" after the last batch has been deleted and having to go through the same presentation that "Yes, it's content fork. Yes, it's a bad fork. And yes it is a carbon copy of already existing material." J Greb (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - Duplicate. CynofGavuf 10:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all the information is already in the right place (where the links go) and this serves no purpose other than to confuse. Dozens of similar articles have been deleted and there should be a moratorium on creating any new ones, as all i is doing is wasting everyone's time (those editing them and those coming along behind and deleting them) - there is a clear consensus that they aren't required and are just unnecessary duplication of existing material (without, it is worth noting, any kind of indication which articles the text is lifted from, something that is required). (Emperor (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 10 April 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. No sources were yet brought up in the discussion that would meet Wikipedia's inclusion policies, but userfication or merging may be at editorial discretion (feel free to contact me). Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Bahaism

Unitarian Bahaism (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 contains no references that meet Wikipedia's policies for inclusion. All the sources are either self-published sources ([10], [11], [12]), blog postings ([13], [14]), or forum postings ([15]). Other editors have spent hours (see talk page trying to find reliable sources and have been unsuccessful). It seems like this group has started a web-presence in the past couple months, and are using their own blogs and self-published pages to argue for inclusion in Wikipedia Jeff3000 (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- My blog (http://senmcglinn.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/muhammad-ali/, writing against the revivial of Muhammad-Ali Unitarian Bahaism) is cited as a source in the article. I want to make it clear that I have no evidence that there is a group behind the UBA formed this year. So far as I know, it is just one person, and that person has a history of starting up groups and projects and moving on to the next one. I think it's very unlikely the group, if it exists, will ever be noteworthy. However there are quite a number of Bahais in the Unitarian Universalist church: that fact might be worth a note somewhere. Also Muhammad Ali's original pretentions and the way they were propagated in North America with the Universalists of his time, is historically notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sen Mcglinn (talk • contribs) 10:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Stillwaterising (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2010(UTC)
  • Delete - As I made clear on the talk page a number of attempts to seek secondary references in acceptable sources for related content have come up dry -Unitarian Bahais or newspaper mentions of same. Since essentially the article was rescued a number of times I spent hrs on this and reviewed over 300 websites looking for anything using the words unitarian and bahai (and permutations). Not a single hit provides a mention that depends on an appropriate source for this group (that is to say: not Youtube, not a blog, etc.) Almost all the websites that mention Bahai and unitarianism are places that are listing various religions like the Baha'i Faith and Unitarian Universalism and Sikhism and so on. A handful refer to unitarian universalists who became Baha'is or where someone investigated one and then the other or knew people of each religion. A very small number refer to the Sohran group already covered in the Divisions article (and ALL of them say the group disappeared before 1940.) One of those - and in my opinion the best ref of the 3 - is already cited in the article about the very thing. These articles do NOT mention this modern group. I vote delete. Sen's concerns that certain historical issues are notably from his understanding are already part of the Bahá'í divisions article though as always if more references are found that supplement the content in worthwhile ways it should be added. Smkolins (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - This article is about Unitarian Bahaism which is "a liberal interpretation of the Bahai religion." This article is NOT about the the Unitarian Bahai Association, and makes only a one mention of the fledgling organization. The article states that Unitarian Bahaism had its origins in the 1930's, which if verified would indicate that it is not a new movement. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply put, there are no third-party sources and as the article claims, the organization is new, so there are likely not going to be any soon. If third-party sources can establish the notability of the topic, then recreate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article or merge it into Baha'i divisions as a new section -- There are third-party published sources establishing that Unitarian Bahaism is a historically existing religious tradition. These include a magazine published for three years in the 1930s by the grandson of the Bahai prophet Baha'u'llah, which also includes writings by various other authors as well, and is digitally reproduced at http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/docs/vol8/bq.htm; and a scholarly and well researched book about the Bahai faith published by a Christian minister in the 1970s, digitally reproduced at http://books.google.com/books?id=gc3_6HVvZzkC&lpg=PP1 (see this page for information about the historical "Unitarian" Bahai group: http://books.google.com/books?id=gc3_6HVvZzkC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA178#v=onepage&q&f=false). As for the fact that there are Unitarian Bahais today, this is established by the existence of various websites and blogs, not all of which are written by Unitarian Bahais themselves. One was written by an Episcopalian Christian: http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2010/03/warm-welcome-to-liberal-bahais.html; another was written by an American ex-Bahai who has become a Unitarian Universalist: http://circleh.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/unitarian-bahais/; and another was posted on Iranian.com by somebody of Iranian heritage: http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/jamileghrari/why-we-need-unitarian-bahai-faith . There is also Sen McGlinn's blog article that has already been referenced, which is very critical of the Unitarian Bahais, both the ones in the 1930s and the ones today, but which confirms that they exist and that there is some kind of philosophical linkage between historical and current Unitarian Bahais. Wikipedia policy on reliable sources states that a blog article by a third-party may be considered a reliable source in the following case: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Sen McGlinn is a scholarly published author on matters of Bahai theology and history, and his blog is of a scholarly nature. In his comment above, Sen McGlinn inaccurately states that the Unitarian Bahai Association may only be one person. In fact, it is a registered nonprofit corporation in the State of Delaware and has a board of directors of five people. I suppose this information is publicly available somewhere, as governments keep public records of the existence of corporate entities. It is also a fact that board members of the Unitarian Bahai Association maintain and moderate an active online discussion forum with approximately 100 members: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unitarian-bahai/. There is also a Unitarian Bahai Facebook group with 30 members and a significant amount of activity by various people: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=347597207967 . Furthermore, it is Wikipedia policy that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves..." Therefore, Unitarian Bahai websites may be used as sources of information to prove that Unitarian Bahaism exists today, and that Unitarian Bahais regard their religious tradition as being linked with the historical Unitarian Bahai tradition of the 1930s that published third-party sources refer to or describe. In conclusion, it seems to me that there is ample evidence that a historical Unitarian Bahaism existed and that it exists again today. Whether or not there are enough reliable sources to justify having a separate article about Unitarian Bahaism at this time seems to me to be an open question. I think probably yes, but if not, then at least a lot of the material from the Unitarian Bahaism article should be merged into the Baha'i divisions article as a new section within that article. Either of those solutions seem reasonable to me. The other option of deleting the article and not merging a substantial amount of its content into Baha'i divisions, as some editors seem to be advocating, seems very unreasonable to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiningdove (talk • contribs) 17:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I think there is some confusion here. The discussion (and sources be it self-published or otherwise) can refer to two groups. The group in the 1930s that followed Mirza Muhammad Ali, which no one states did not exist, and which is talked about in the Baha'i divisions page, where there reliable sources is basically extinct, and the newer phenomenon where this older belief has been restarted by a number of people with some web presence. The connection of this new phenomenon with the 1930s group has no reliable sources from secondary sources making that connection. The article as it stands is about the new phenomenan, and the editor's comments above relating to the new phenomena are all from self-published sources, and self-published sources cannot define notability for Wikipedia inclusion. If the article is going to be about the 1930s group, the best place for inclusion for a group that probably did not get bigger than 30 is best included in the Baha'i divisions page, as it currently is. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments re Baha'i divisions article. -- The problem with the Baha'i divisions article, in regard to historical Unitarian Bahaism, is that it is completely one sided against it. It references no sources that contradict the official narrative of the Haifa-based Baha'i Faith organization, even though there are such sources available which are credible, published, third-party sources. All of the language in the Baha'i divisions article about Mirza Muhammad Ali and his Unitarian Bahaism movement is negative and one-sided. It doesn't even reference the magazine that was published by his son, in which Mirza Muhammad Ali's own views and his defense against the allegations of Abdul-Baha were presented. It doesn't mention the fact that the first Bahai to establish the Bahai faith in America, Ibrahim George Kheiralla, was himself a Unitarian Bahai who supported Mirza Muhammad Ali. It doesn't mention the fact that there even was a Unitarian Bahai group in the United States in the 1930s, led by Shuaullah Behai, the grandson of the prophet Bahaullah, and that this group was a legally established group called the Society of Behaists, and that it had various American members. An objective Wikipedia article would mention things like that. So, if you want to redirect the Unitarian Bahaism article, then at least let's get some decent, neutral information about Unitarian Bahaism into the Baha'i divisions article. Or, we could remove the references to modern Unitarian Bahais from the Unitarian Bahaism article and make it just an article about a historical religious movement founded by one of the sons of the prophet Bahaullah, which mostly died out -- and then, if any published third-party sources about the modern Unitarian Bahai movement appear at some point in the future, that information could be added back into the article. Jeff3000, which of these two reasonable options do you think would be the better approach? Shiningdove (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the neutral point of view policy notes, these other viewpoints should be in Wikipedia. The qualification here is that they need to be published by reliable sources, and the appropriate weight given as in current reliable sources. So redirecting the page to Baha'i divisions and including any reliable sources about the 1930s group, in my mind, is the way to go. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we have the beginnings of a consensus here but it was hard to find with other structures and intermingling dates of things happening. Is there a way to bring this out more clearly so it's simple and visible? Or perhaps we're far enough along it's practically achieved consensus.Smkolins (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Comment: First, this Afd discussions is only for the purpose of deciding if the religious belief system known as Unitarian Bahaism is worth of having it's own article. Notability guidelines explicitly state that notability should not be used to determine the content of an article. The statements on modern Unitarian Bahaism are adequately sourced and not subject should not be used as bargaining chips on other issues.

Second, the Baha'i divisions article is horribly biased. I've only reviewed the lead so far, and I have to say that it is highly inappropriate. I've also found problems with verifiability and would suggest that it be nominated for POV check.

Third, I see many similarities in the Baha'i divisions compaired to the succession crisis that occurred in the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints (Mormonism) after the death of Joseph Smith. Brigham Young seized control of the group using criminal tactics. Others followed Joseph Smith, Jr. and formed Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) (and other sects) that continue to this day.

The official history of the LDS was written by the winners (Young's followers) while other groups are/were labeled as apostates. I see strong similarities to the succession of Mormonism to what has happened in Baha'i.

Fourth, I have no idea what Jeff3000 means by "appropriate weight given as in current reliable sources." I'm aware of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT though. No undue weight is given to modern UB's as very little of the article deals with this topic. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: They certainly are not adequately sourced. The only credible info is of the earlier group which lapsed long ago. Since when did you become such an expert on the history of these groups that you just know the Divisions article is biased? I thought you wanted expert input? I see similarities with early Christianity especially among the Apostles. But you know what? I've never seen any scholarly comparison so all of it would be inappropriate in an article and not alittle suspect in these discussions. Appropriate weight means that outlandish theories require extraordinary proof and the body of research reflect the body of the article rather than the other way around. Very little deals with UB because, cough, there's very little to be said - especially any modern group. The old group lost court case after court case in various countries over a few years. This group old or new certainly has nothing to do with the Persecution of Bahá'ís or the Egyptian identification card controversy or the world wide community (still inadequately documented) which is growing among the fastest in the world since world wide statistics were gathered (which is to say over the last 35 years) or the Category:Bahá'í educational institutions serving people. And of the individuals that started their own groups I'm pretty sure the Remey split was more substantial. I'm pretty certain it included more people in more countries even if it was eventually almost totally extinct.Smkolins (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
POV check needed for Baha'i divisions article - Yes, the Baha'i divisions article is biased and I agree with Stillwaterising that it should be nominated for POV check. In fact, much of that article should probably be rewritten, as it reads like an official Baha'i Faith propaganda piece right now. How can the process be started to nominate it for POV check?
 Done - I knew how to do it but was holding off until consensus was reached. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Comment:What consensus was this??

Comment: Perhaps a parallel would help on the question of deletion. A small but significant Unitarian Bahai movement arose in the United States in the 1930s, but unfortunately it did not last. We seek to revive this school of thought today… it says on the the avowed website of the group about 3/4ths down the page. So there is no link. Between numbering at most 100 according to their own numbers (though no independent examination), and no chain linked or claimed with the original group, it's far less notable than say the The Mandaeans, followers of John the Baptist, who number in the tens of thousands and have an established history linking the modern community to the past.Smkolins (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sources are extremely poor. Those that aren't to the website are supporting OR. McGlinn's observations are salient here - and Shiningdove's statistics about its Facebook membership don't contradict the point - that this is likely just a flash in the pan. What is WP coming to if we have to spend this kind of time deciding that a Facebook group of thirty doesn't cross notability? MARussellPESE (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Follow Up Forgot to mention specifically: WP:NN.
Since I voted, somebody's been trying to add refs, and sorry to say, they're pretty cruddy.
Not only are they appallingly lacking complete citation, every single reference in the "Modern" section is to either a blog or a website that wouldn't pass muster, even as SELFPUB, because the point here is to to establish, by independent means, that this is an acutal organization. Sen McGlinn's point above is very salient.
The "Historical" section's references - those that aren't pointing to the same blog - don't draw a clear line at all between Ali and Unitarian Universalism. The only thing the genuine sources seem to address clearly is the split between Ali and Abdul-Baha, and a single, third-hand account compiled by Browne (Does that make it a fourth-hand account?) calling Ali "unitaritian".
Lastly, nothing identifies a clear "heredity" of these periods beyond, perhaps, sharing the term "unitarian". Somebody's getting snookered. MARussellPESE (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: KEEP THIS PAGE

McGlinn's blog article on this subject contains various polemic materials, including an image of Alice in Wonderland's Mad Hatter clearly designed to insult UBA reformism. McGlinn was ex-communicated by the haifan-bahai organization, and he is a very complex individual.

Stetson was, previous to founding UBA, viciously attacked by a prominent haifan-bahai "scholar" named Momen who is presumably under the influence of the haifan-bahai world center. As such, UBA joins a continuum of bahai nonconformism, criticism and dissent that has been extensively documented since the 1980s in both official haifan-bahai sources (published attacks by haifan bahai administration on critics and dissidents) and other published sources, including books and article by critics such as Cole, Garlington and others.

UBA is probably currently the single most significant reform movement amongst the various non-haifan bahai organizations, and the attempt to delete this page could be considered a significant example of persecution of critics of the haifan-bahai organization, and worthy of attention by those publishing material critical of censorship by haifan-bahais.

The haifan-bahais have attempted to censor an entire nonconformist bahai publishing business, Kalimat Press, that was the source of many controversial articles and books that were popular amongst people critical of the religions' many faults.

Please do not underestimate the extent to which people that have been involved in the haifan-bahai organization have deeply and/or subconsciously internalized biases against nonconformists, dissidents and critics.

The haifan-bahais are obsessed by conversion, so the charges about "missionary" motives of critics (Miller) are ironic.

Bias disclosure: I'm an ex-bahai that was coerced into joining the religion as a teenager in the early 1970s on the periphery of the "mass teaching" phenomena in south carolina. I submitted a resignation request to the haifan-bahai organization about five or six years ago. I knew people involved in the LA Study Group, Dialogue Magazine, and was an active participant in the original "Talisman" email group, and have been "investigated" by haifan-bahai authorities several times for being a critic and nonconformist. since leaving I no longer believe that the bahai/islamic "manifestation" concept has validity beyond a very culturally limted context, rather transcendence is directly available to all humanity as a result of biological evolution (not "revelation"). I currently am re-embracing the dharma traditions, particularly buddhism, and am interested in integral theory (Aurobindo, Rudolph Steiner, Jean Gebser, Ken Wilber) and consciousness studies.

Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.126.161 (talk • contribs)

"What is WP coming to if we have to spend this kind of time deciding that a Facebook group of thirty doesn't cross notability? MARussellPESE (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)"

Well, you and other haifan bahais, if successful at censoring the material, will certainly contribute to minimizing competition from UBA.

If the haifan-bahais had simply let the material stand, and allowed it to evolve and be discussed in a healthy manner, the purpose of providing an open knowledge commons (democracy) in which the merits and problems of a small bahai reform movement could be "independently investigated" could have been properly served.

the haifan-bahais might even have learned something from the people marginalized by their own dysfunctional leadership, again, as responsible, principled citizens in a democratic republic.

If the UBA Wiki material is deleted, then the UBA will most likely attempt to publish an article about this as the latest example of censorship by haifan bahais. And then, I guess enough "published" material would exist for UBA to be considered "notable"?

Is the letter from Dann May (Oklahoma City University) requesting that the (haifan) US National Baha'i Center stop annoying him and his wife relevant?

If so, then please note that only a couple of years after May was cited in a local newspaper article about religious tolerance

http://www.bahaindex.com/en/news/1-general-news/3258-school-in-bonny-doon-emphasizes-religious-tolerance

Professor May complained about the intolerance that exists with in the haifan-bahai organization!

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha'i_Faith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.126.161 (talk • contribs)

"we already view ourselves as no longer members of the Baha’i community and we regularly attend Unitarian and Buddhist activities."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.126.161 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment - nothing in your argument has anything to do with Wikipedia policies, such as WP:N. If the article is deleted, it will be upon those grounds. LadyofShalott 16:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The only guideline that's applicable here is General Notability Guidelines (GNG|GNG). Nothing else really matters. WP:UNDUE is a guideline regarding content, not notability. Importance, or significance is irrelevant. The number of followers is irrelevant. Theological matters are irrelevant.

Here's justification on why this article meets the GNG guidelines. Browne's 1918 translation of Baha'u'llah's writings establish that his followers both called themselves "Unitarians" and held the same basic beliefs. This work is published and verifiable however it may be considered a primary source which may not make it suitable for establishing notability.

The 2005 Garlington "The Baha'i Faith in America" also can be considered a reliable source suitable for establishing notability. It is published by Greenwood Publishing Group which can be presumed to be a reliable publisher and certainly not "self-published". This secondary source can be used to confirm the existence of first American Bahai organization and establish notability.

This group later "switched sides" and followed Unitarian beliefs. That is confirmed by contents of quarterly magazine called the "Behai Quarterly". This magazine was published from 1934 to 1937 and has been scanned and is available online for free public viewing. This source is published by Shua Ulla Behai and contains the writings of persons who are considered experts in their fields. It establishes that the early American group help Unitarian Behai believes. It is considered to be a reliable secondary source under the special provisions of WP:SPS.

Next is "Bahá'í: Studies in Contemporary Religion" by Warburg. It's published by Signature Books, a reliable publisher, and is suitable secondary source which can be used for establishing notability. This source also documents the early American movement.

Finally, there is an assortment of websites and self-publish essays which, taken as a whole, can help establish notability.

I'm angered the nominator, Jeff3000, did not agree to wait until reliable sources were found. He instead pushed forward with deletion hours after creation and has caused undue stress and divisioin in the community. Jeff3000 has a declared conflict of interest in the topic of Baha'ism and should not be making controversial edits, which includes Afd nominations. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - There are couple things to note regarding the above comments. First is the the clear demarcation between the old 1930s group, which clearly existed and has a number of secondary sources noting it. That is not the problem. The problem is the notability of the apparent-new phenomomen, which has no third-party reliable sources to make it notable, and an extensive portion of the article, including the lead is based on self-published sources from this new group. Any connections between this new group and the old group are also based on self-published sources and would be considered original research. The above editor's comments that "an assortment of websites and self-publish essays which, taken as a whole, can help establish notability" does not abide by Wikipedia's policies. I'm willing to retract this AFD if the articles subject is the old 1930s group. Finally, Stillwaterising comments regarding my COI are incorrect, and my contributions back that up. I deal with both anti- and pro-Baha'i content alike, and I use reliable, third-party reliable sources relating to all my work. I've tried to assume AGF on his part, but he has no notion of that towards me. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - given the non-nominator delete votes above, simply withdrawing the nomination is not an option at this point (though the nominator is of course free to change his mind and argue for keeping). LadyofShalott 22:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Jeff3000, you have made over 41,000 edits over the last 5 years. I can not reasonably believe that you have not read the WP:GNG. From the Third Paragraph of General Notability Guidelines: "Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." This notability discussion is to determine the suitability of the topic of Unitarian Bahaism for its own article. It does NOT directly limit the content of articles. Period. So no, you can not use the arguement of NN of modern UB because it's not supported by guidelines. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Stillwaterising, what I'm referring to is something unrelated to this AFD, but the comment that the if the notability of the 1930s group is established, that by default makes a connection between the new group and the old group, and that is not true, unless there is a reliable source to back that up. And without a reliable source making the connection WP:SELFPUB does not apply. An example, is the Flat Earth article, where the section on modern flat-earthers uses third-party sources such as the BBC to note their existence, and actually doesn't use any of the self-published sources from the modern believers. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why I vote to keep the page -- There are two aspects of Unitarian Bahaism: (1) A historical religious tradition and community, the existence of which is proved by plenty of reliable sources, and the notability of which is augmented by the fact that its founder was one of the sons of the Bahai prophet Bahaullah himself, that most of Bahaullah's wives and children supported Unitarian Bahaism, and that the founder of the Bahai faith in America was a Unitarian Bahai. (2) A nascent religious movement that, according to various websites and blogs associated with it and/or its supporters, seeks to revive some of the beliefs of historical Unitarian Bahaism, but which does not have printed sources about it yet because it is so new. Based on the notability and reliable sources for historical Unitarian Bahaism alone, this article should be kept. The debate really should only be about whether to remove some of the material about the modern Unitarian Bahai movement, due to the fact that it has not yet been described outside the internet. Even on this issue, however, the following principle applies: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field..." (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources). This means that the section on Modern Unitarian Bahais should not be entirely removed, and perhaps could even be kept as is -- especially if the historical portion of the article were to be expanded to constitute a larger majority of the content of the article. Therefore, it seems clear that there is no reasonable basis to argue for deleting this article. It is also worth noting that two other small Bahai sects or heresies already have their own articles: Orthodox Baha'i Faith and Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant. Unitarian Bahaism is at least of comparable importance. In fact, I would argue it's even more important, since many of the supporters of Unitarian Bahaism were close family members of the Bahai prophet Bahaullah, and its founder was his son and was given the position of second rank in the leadership of the religion in Bahaullah's will, after Abdul-Baha (even majoritarian Bahais agree with this well-established fact). For these reasons, this particular schismatic/heretical tradition is highly relevant to the study of Bahai history and always will be, even if, hypothetically, it were someday to cease to be an extant tradition. One of the descendants of the prophet Bahaullah was interviewed in a 2006 Israeli film documentary about the Bahai faith, and she is a Unitarian Bahai, supporting her grandfather Mirza Muhammad Ali, the founder of Unitarian Bahaism, which shows that Unitarian Bahaism never completely died out. And during the past year, interest in and support for the Unitarian Bahai tradition has been markedly increasing as demonstrated by numerous online sources, which makes it even more noteworthy than it already would be if it were only a historical phenomenon. Shiningdove (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Note, this editor has already voted above. Also, in regards to the newer group, the lead and a whole section of the page is based on self-published sources from the new group. Also the connections between the new group and the old group are also based on self-published sources and the connection would be considered original research. If a connection between the new group and the old group could be made by reliable third-party sources, then an argument could be made in regards to WP:SELFPUB, but not with the current sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and question for Jeff3000 -- Maybe the lead of the article needs some work. Printed third-party sources could easily be added to the lead to back up some of the statements therein. As for the rest of the article, perhaps the historical section should be expanded to give it more weight relative to the modern section. A lot more details about historical Unitarian Bahaism could be added and there are plenty of good references available for that part. Since we are discussing the issue of whether the entire article should be deleted, would you change your position from deletion to keeping the article if those two things I just mentioned were done to it? Shiningdove (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - At this point, I think what is best is that the sources used in the historical section should be used to make the section in the Baha'i divisions better, and the page should be a redirect to that section. As I noted above with the example of how the Flat earth article deals with new groups that seem to be continuation of older groups, reliable sources need to be available making that connection. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also vote to keep the page Students of religions will undoubtedly stumble on Unitarian Bahaism, and I believe objective information should be available about this Baha'i religion. I vote «keep» while understanding that it is preferable «to find a mutually agreeable position.» (Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion ).--Martin Lavallée 17:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin lavallee (talk • contribs)
  • Comment The editor above doesn't address the issues that there are no reliable secondary sources noting the notability. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As Stillwaterising notes, the only guideline that's applicable here is General Notability Guidelines (GNG|GNG). And a link is in fact claimed with the original group. Indeed, an actual connection between the revivalist movement and the original movement can be made by Nigar Bahai Amsalem (the great grand-daughter of Baha'u'llah) who has expressed her approval of it. If the article is to be deleted, I would favor it being merged within the Baha'i divisions article. Alison Hart— Alison Hart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment The above editor has only two edits to their account. Second, a personal account is not considered a reliable source. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merely asserting notability, does not so demonstrate. After over a week of sturm und drang over this, we still have yet to see any independent evidence that this is more than a few facebook friends and an active blogger behind this. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the talk page for the Unitarian Bahaism page being discussed here someone supporting the article pointed out an entry in soulpancake. On reviewing the entries I came across this comment: "There will eventually be a Wikipedia entry on the UBA along with a team of edit warriors." 3 weeks ago[16] (search down the page for "wiki"). I don't quite know what to do about it but it seems this should be brought to a wider audience. People have talked about full disclosure. This seems to hint at a lot more going on. Smkolins (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know the person who wrote that, but I know somebody who does know the person in question. The author of the quote you're referring to is not, to my knowledge, a member of the UBA but seems to be a supporter. What I DO know is this: A few people who have edited the Unitarian Bahaism page have disclosed their identity either as UBA members, UU church members, ex-Bahai, or Orthodox Baha'i. Most of these editors in fact are not UBA members, but are people who are interested in Unitarian Bahaism and maybe sympathetic to it. The "lot more going on" that you mention may simply be that there are a variety of independent individuals who want to see Unitarian Bahaism mentioned in Wikipedia and who are therefore here editing the article. Just as there are various Baha'is loyal to the Haifa organization here who are also editing the article. Isn't that what one would expect would happen? Many of the editors of this article, I think most of them, have already disclosed their religious affiliation, and it seems the affiliations of the editors are very diverse. Shiningdove (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the question on SoulPancake whether the page on Unitarian Bahaism should be kept or not and indicated the link to the page on Wikipedia. There might be people interested on this matter there in SoulPancake and contribute here in Wikipedia. I consider Alison a dear friend, as I tried to be courteous towards her in my discussions with her in Soulpancake. I have an interest on Unitarian Bahaism, but am not member of this Baha'i religion. I am member of the Orthodox Baha'i Faith.--Martin Lavallée 17:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect. A few individuals seem to be using Wikipedia as a kind of adertisement. Sources are dubious and rely on personal websites or blogs. Info on Muhammad Ali is already in the Baha'i divisions page, and if credible sources are found, a mention on that page could be made to the handful of people who call themselves Unitarian Baha'is. Lastly, I want to point out that out of the 3 "keep" votes, while User:Stillwaterising is a real editor, User:Shiningdove has very few edits, over half of which are related to the page in question, and User:Alison Hart has only 2 edits. From a consensus point of view, that is relevant. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question and Comment -- Have you disclosed your own religious affiliation, as many of us have? Editors of this page have disclosed religious affiliations including Orthodox Baha'i (creator of the page), Unitarian Bahai (me), Unitarian Universalist (Stillwater, Dale Husband, and me), ex-Baha'i (Dale Husband), and Haifan/mainstream Baha'i (Jeff, Smkolins, and seemingly a couple others). Considering that the people who have worked on this page are very diverse in their religious affiliations, and the page was created by a person who is not even a Unitarian Bahai, it doesn't seem like an attempt at advertising by one specific religious group. Shiningdove (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cuñado stated that "User:Shiningdove has very few edits, over half of which are related to the page in question" which is clearly innaccurate. Shiningdove has made his/her first edit in July of 2008 and has made a total of 336 edits with 55 (16%) of them related to UB, Udiv, or related discussions. If this user is willing to falsify facts in an attempt to discredit his opposition, should Cuñado's comments be considered to be neutral and without bias? - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stillwaterising, I did not count sandbox edits. You are wrong to declare that I'm "falsifying facts". Same right back at you. This whole AFD has become a big sideshow and is no longer focused on WP:V and notability. Get back on track. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 09:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the accusation. I withdraw the comment. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure it is entirely appropriate to ask anyone who comments here to state his or her religious affiliation. LadyofShalott 22:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All the arguments presented have depended on reasons. Proof, acceptable sources, are the system we work with and has been consistently talked about especially from those wanting to delete the article. THose wanting to keep the article have rather consistently posted unacceptable sources for support of the existence of an independent article. As for the question for someone so well informed of rules and tagging of articles it is odd that you see so little about checking user pages for information we want to share. At this point - after a week of effort from 10 non-Bot editors - none of the references for the existence of the current group are acceptable and none of the references note that the group is notable on strength of numbers long ago or at present. That the group existed is already documented in the divisions article. Perhaps more could be said but hardly a whole article. But I don't see the comment "There will eventually be a Wikipedia entry on the UBA along with a team of edit warriors." 3 weeks ago, about a week before the article existed, as not something that can be just passed up as if it were nothing. "team of warriors" does not imply "a variety of independent individuals". And almost everyone supporting the article are newish or absolutely new or somewhere in between. It sounds like a group of people who came together to make something happen in wikipedia and these same people bring up bad references repeatedly. The only good ones cover the existence of an earlier group already in the other article and a few comments that do not support the existence of the group then or now or anything about their significance. The few sentences about Nigar Bahai Amsalem for example say nothing about the group. They say she was interviewed in a mockumentary from which she withheld information and built a shrine on her grandfather's grave. So be it. It says nothing whatsoever about the supposed Unitarian Baha'is. This is the evidence and it is upon the evidence that a consensus is to be reached. Smkolins (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can we get alittle help? From my reading of MARussellPESE's statements above he voted to delete but he's not showing in the stats that way. Smkolins (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is true of Cuñado as well. Smkolins (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have submitted a detailed source-by-source run down of existing sources and why they are both reliable and suitable for notability purposes. In general, it only takes two reliable secondary sources independent of the subject and I have presented more than two. The arrangement against the reliability of the sources needs to include more information besides "they are unreliable." I have proven that reliable sources were used that have established notability and there's been no credible argument against them besides "self-published". Sources 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 14 are all published in reliable sources. As far as sourcing goes, this article is better than average in the number of reliable sources and unless somebody can come up with a convincing argument for each of the sources listed above, this subject can be presumed notable and can be considered suitable for inclusion. - Stillwaterising (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The above is not true. Combining a list of facts from various sources to claim notability does not indicate them, when the sources don't actually mention the subject of the article by name, otherwise that would be synthesis and original research. However, let's go over the sources that you state are providing notability. Source 5 is not only self-published, it has been reviewed in the peer-reviewed journal Religion as being a polemic, and it doesn't mention the term Unitarian Bahaism, only that Muhammad Ali had problems with Abdu'l-Baha. Source 6 is a source about source 5, and again doesn't mention the subject of the article. Source 7 is about a separate fact, and again doesn't mention the subject of the article. Source 8 is a primary source. Source 11 is used to source a fact about Ibrahim George Kheiralla and doesn't mention the subject of the article. Source 13 is the only source that is not self-published and notes the subject of the article. Combine the above, with the total reliance of the lead and the second section with self-published sources clearly show that at best the page should be redirected. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - and source thirteen doesn't represent Browne's understanding of why they are called unitarian, but a translation of a letter (epitome) of a "Mirza Jawad" and others through the book about their use of the word and its understanding of why they call themselves unitarian; from the pov of supporters of Muhammad Ali. As far as translation goes then it supports that the term has a history and a claim of meaning but not Browne's endorsement that the claim is infact theologically sound as his understanding as an academic expert. Just bring precise.Smkolins (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from anonymous user referring to MARussellPese's comments above
>... a scholarly and well researched book about the Bahai faith published by a Christian minister in the 1970s ...

The above is a grossly misleading statement! The book in question is neithere "scholarly" nor objective, and is in fact a subtly slanted attack on the Baha'i Faith which poses as objective but is no such thing! Further, it has been debunked and refuted in a published article titled "The Missionary as Historian" that's available on the baha'i-library.org web site, which article points out a number of the untruths that the original book hints at and never corrects, thus allowing the reader to draw the obvious (but incorrect) conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.51.96 (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment that comments "a scholarly and well researched book..." didn't come from MARussellPese. It came from " unsigned comment added byShiningdove" for what it's worth.Smkolins (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's really no such thing as an objective book about the Baha'i faith. All books written about it are either written by Baha'is themselves, who have an agenda to promote their faith, or by people who write about it to critique it. Therefore, the book by William Miller is no more biased than any other book written about this religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.62.37 (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia has policies and guidelines on verifiability and reliablity. Books published by academic publishers and academic journals are not most reliable, and those that are self-published are for the most part considered not reliable at all. Not only is William Miller's book self-published, but we have an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal saying that it's not reliable. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response -- Miller's book is not self-published. Its publisher is William Carey Library. Can't you at least admit that virtually every book that's ever been written about the Bahai religion is written by someone with a bias? Whether the bias is basically pro-Bahai or anti-Bahai, I've never come across a single book about the Bahai religion that is not written with the purpose of either making the religion look good or look bad -- with the possible exception of books by the scholar Edward Granville Browne, whose scholarly credentials and non-Bahai, disinterested status cannot be reasonably called into question. Should we only use Browne as the only source for all articles on Wikipedia about the Bahai faith? Shiningdove (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - William Carey Library is a publisher and distributor of Christian missionary books[17] - certain not an independent party. They are "selfpublished" from a Christian pov which is against anything not (their brand of ) Christian. Smkolins (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the fact that a publisher is a Christian publishing house mean that all of their books are therefore "self-published"? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Are all books written about the Bahai faith and published by Bahai publishing houses also "self-published"? Guess so, according to your logic. But somehow I doubt that you'll be supporting putting the "self-published" tag on books that have been published by Bahai publishing houses. Shiningdove (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- see Talk:Unitarian_Bahaism#Publisher_of_book_by_William_McElwee_Miller for discussion. Smkolins (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Baha'i Divisions with redirect I've carefully considered Jeff3000's latest comments about synthesis and original research and have decided to change my vote. In addition this page can be userfied and used as a resource and could eventually be moved back into mainspace once proper context is establish. I would expect in the near future reliable independent secondary sources will be available on modern Unitarian Baha'ism. My hope is that people of all faiths can read and understand this article and also be able to contribute. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- Merger seems like a reasonable option to me, provided that a substantial portion of the Unitarian Bahaism article is retained as a new section of Baha'i divisions, and that Unitarian Bahaism itself is not deleted but instead set to redirect to that new section of Baha'i divisions. The Baha'i divisions article needs major work and I would like to be involved in helping to improve that article; not only a new portion of it about Unitarian Bahaism but also other parts too. I also want to say that I agree with Stillwaterising that if Unitarian Bahaism is redirected to Baha'i divisions, it should be restored to an article of its own if and when reliable printed sources become available to link the historical and modern versions of this religious tradition, which is likely to happen fairly soon. Shiningdove (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing various versions of proposals that have been floated in various places with various complexities. Let's get a couple things in the background. Wikipedia always allows any article to be supplemented with appropriate references that improve an article. There is no proposal necessary to have special rights to improve an article. Can that get rid of some of these complexities? Nor does any article require "I want in on it". Any editor can always try to improve any article(except for blocked users and protected pages and I don't see that about to begin (normally comes from excessive vandalism.)) I think it comes down to this:

** Redirect Unitarian Bahaism to Bahá'í divisions or a section thereof from which something of the article would go.

IF that is consensus then we can focus on just what such a section would be.Smkolins (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made the comment referenced above ("There will eventually be a Wikipedia entry on the UBA along with a team of edit warriors") in reply to a question addressed to me by Martin Lavallee in the course of a conversation on SoulPancake. "Team of warriors" may not imply "a variety of independent individuals" but neither does it necessarily imply "a group of people who came together to make something happen in wikipedia." To the best of my knowledge, the creation of this article on Unitarian Bahaism was entirely at the initiative of Mr. Lavallee, who for some reason completely unknown to me now refers to me as "one of my dearest friends," despite the fact that I have not had any contact with him outside of SoulPancake, and that not for some time. Yes, there was intent among some supporters of the UBA to submit a Wikipedia entry *at some point* but I had no foreknowledge at all of Mr. Lavallee's initiative. Had I been informed of his intention in advance, I might have thought it premature. Also, to the best of my knowledge, there are at present no formal requirements for membership in the UBA, so one can hardly be a member of an organization which has no membership requirements. At this point, I think "a mention ... could be made to the handful of people who call themselves Unitarian Baha'is" would be adequate, given the lack of acceptable sources. Alison Hart —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 17 April 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) 12:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Show Dance

Oriental Show Dance (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 dance form by non-notable dancer. There is, unfortunately, no speedy deletion category for this genre of article. Woogee (talk) 06:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Nothing to indicate it's notable. CynofGavuf 10:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom (GregJackP (talk) 21:48, 13 April 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 16:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Maxwell (footballer)

Chris Maxwell (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)

Contested PROD, no reason given by IP user. Football who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football, only Conference National. Also fails WP:GNG due to any significant media coverage. --Jimbo[online] 16:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - U21 and U23 international at the age of 19 years reflects current an future potential. Wales U21 are curent table leaders in front of Italy and hungary for the 2011 euro championships. Does not meet all criteria but is notable and the article is a likely location for research. The subject is employed full time as a professinal athelete and plays for a historic and notable team.}}
  • Keep. He plays 5th division football. That isn't a long way from the top 4 which automatically confer notability. He's a Welsh U23 international of some repute. Article is well sourced and cited. He fails WP:Athlete but passes WP:GNG. Szzuk (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a very well sourced article, and my opinion passes WP:GNG. He may fail WP:ATHLETE but that alone is not grounds for deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly does not meet the criterion for athletes as he has not yet played in a fully professional league, which in this context are the Premier League and the Football League, nor has he yet played at the top level for the national team, which is the senior team. Having read through the sources, he also does not meet the primary inclusion criterion in my view since, despite the number of citations, there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully professional league. It is fairly well referenced but in my opinion he also fails the general notability guidelines because all the coverage of him is routine sports journalism which doesn't count per WP:NTEMP. -- BigDom 20:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I originally had "keep" here but I'm changing to delete as I'm convinced on a more thorough reading of the sources that the coverage is not significant. Also, I'm generally loathe to extend [[WP:ATH] any further than it already is for footballers. I would suggest userfication to anyone who wants it because this guy might not be too far off meeting WP:ATH. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 00:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well constructed, well sourced article that represents encyclopedic knowledge --Tmckeage (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well-referenced article that indicates wider notability, and he has played for both Wales under-21 and in the Football Conference, which is a notable level of football. Eldumpo (talk) 11:10, 10 April 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. Peter 16:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Ultraman Nexus monsters

List of Ultraman Nexus monsters (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)

Minor component of fictional work. Unsourced. In-universe style. Listcruft. John Nagle (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's right. It's a word for word copy of [19]. Embarrassing. --John Nagle (talk) 07:25, 14 April 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) 12:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RoTwee

RoTwee (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)
Well... Please take informations more carefully. Total downloads for product lefelines are 913. Not only 150 for a week. about 6 times.--7k8m (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As same, I hope consideration about deletion in great careful mind. Sincerely.--7k8m (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, linked sites you called "download site" is not download sites, but the project sites of products, which is very important source of product information. Please take information more carefully again. --7k8m (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability given in any independent source. "Different from other twitter client application, RoTwee displays tweets in rotating radial lines." So? The refs given establish existence, and two appear to be product linked. Download figures from such are not reliable info. Existence does not equal article. Peridon (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refutation Those pages are project page for development of product under open source policy. All source code are managed there (http://rotwee.codeplex.com/SourceControl/list/changesets ) and all source code of the product is available from the site. Such project pages of product would be most reliable info for the product, because not only download compiled program in binary format but also can build program from source code and see inside of the program technically, if you have enough ability. (Furthermore, I'm also not sure why "download" is so mainly discussed here... ) --7k8m (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are sources that tell what it is - but not how notable it is. This is an encyclopaedia with rules/guidelines on what can be included and what not. It is not a technical directory. The sources we look for are independent of you and of the open source project. Articles (but not 'press release' type ones) in reputable newspapers or magazines are usually OK. Blogs, forums, press releases and editable sites like aboutus are not regarded as reliable. Why do people always tell us that sources are what we're looking for when we've looked at them and explained why they're not? Please re-read the nomination - and look at the policies referred to. Peridon (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well ... That site is open to everyone including you. Not under my absolute dominant. You can participate discussion at discussion tab and issue tracker tab of that site. For an example, one programmer post question about how to build program. http://rotwee.codeplex.com/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=17017
As same as Korath, please be more careful about what one is. I think you are under your wrong impression too much. As if you want just to delete the article under word notablity. I don't think that's Wikipedia way. --7k8m (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sigh "That site is open to everyone including you." Precisely. It is not what we require. If you don't like our requirements, tough. You are free to start your own encyclopaedia. I repeat, "Blogs, forums, press releases and editable sites like aboutus are not regarded as reliable." A URL like 'rotwee.codeplex.com' is obviously not acceptable as a reference for notability. READ THE WIKIPEDIA POLICIES and listen to us. We're telling you how to save the **** article - if you will listen and find the necessary refs. If you can't find them now, try again when you can. If the product is notable enough, I do want an article. If it isn't, well... Peridon (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In WP:Notability, there exists way of thinking as next. "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." I think you persist just shallow understanding of outline too much. --7k8m (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have one more point. Your comment, "If the product is notable enough", confesses your improper attiude. It is not product but article which should be notable. Well.. RoTwee is not famous product at all now. However, as WP:Notability says "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic", it can not be a reason for removal. --7k8m (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article is not a notable thing. The product that is the subject of the article should be. If you want to get the article kept, please do what we are asking you to do (see WP:BURDEN and provide us with the evidence that is lacking. We usually find that when people argue at length and provide nothing that there is no evidence to find. When people are helpful themselves and want to be helped by us, we help. Those that don't try, we don't bother with. Peridon (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, WP:BURDEN which you refered is not for notability, for verifiability. I think you just are to abuse description in article of rule. Second, I believe representing project site where reader can know almost all of the product including source code of the product satisfy verifiability. Readers can read source code if they want to verify article. --7k8m (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:N. No signs of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though not perfection, "No signs" is not correct because reference to whole source code would be reliable source for program. I feel like this is just an argument around popularity and not notability. --7k8m (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:DEL#REASON, points 6 and 7. — Rankiri (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, reader can verify article if he/shre read source code available at linked site. Then, no verifiability is not true. For such a reader, I added link to only part of source code at the project site. What is more reliable than source code of that program ? --7k8m (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source code establishes that it exists. I could publish some programs that I've written but they still wouldn't be notable (even if transferred to object-oriented COBOL from Microfocus 3). We want outside references not inside ones. Reports ABOUT your prog by OTHER people. If you can't understand this, sorry. There's no way I can make it easier. I'm not a deletionist (except when it comes to spam...). I'll happily change my !vote if you can come up with what's needed. Peridon (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added link to page of RoTwee at softpedia.com. They seem to find this program and made the page though I'm not sure.--7k8m (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better one was tweets from other person for the program, however it seems that Wikipedia does not allow link to tweet. --7k8m (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added link to www.twine.com. I don't know them. They seems to find RoTwee themselvs. However I'm not sure this is so called notability... Argument around outside references lose sense here. --7k8m (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a blind belief for secondary sources may be harmful in some situation. --7k8m (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added link to twitdom. They seem to capture screenshot themself. I'm not sure this is so called notability again. --7k8m (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I think best reference on the article is link to twinavi. I applied for that site myself, and the staff in that site made a fair copy of introduction over my self introduction. So I feel a little angry around dirty word blurb in comment of Korath. It was an insult for them. --7k8m (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but if you got in touch with them, and supplied the info, then that doesn't count as independent. Independent means you are not involved with the creation or hosting of the article/report, and/or have no part in editing it. Peridon (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well. I see. Just my personal opinion for their good job. --7k8m (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
? --7k8m (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just can't take intension from just one word .... --7k8m (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well... Not debate at all. --7k8m (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The links just added look possibly good to me. Could someone who knows them better check them out? Ta. (No, not you 7k8m....) Peridon (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still primary sources and trivial listings is comprehensive software databases. Twitdom.com is a blog that lists all Twitter apps: [20]. Softpedia, Twinavi.com (translation) and Twine.com have no significant secondary coverage of the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 12:31, 13 April 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) 12:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Mid-Winter Night's Dream (Frasier episode)

AfDs for this article:
A Mid-Winter Night's Dream (Frasier episode) (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)
  • Not notable, no independent coverage. Wikipedia is not an episode guide. SummerPhD (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are Frasier episode articles that include third-party coverage and establish notability, but this isn't one of them. Leoniceno (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I honestly just don't see any point to the article, as far as I can tell it contributes nothing--Tmckeage (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It isn't 2006 anymore, when Wikipedia was filled with "I-saw-a-TV-show" articles. An article had been written, then redirected to Frasier (season 1). Perhaps the redirect was undone in hopes that it would pave the way for more Frasier articles. For Frasier fans, you can now indulge your muse at The Frasier Wiki, where "tossed salad and scrambled eggs" contributions are welcome. Mandsford (talk) 00:53, 11 April 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 Dino Dvornik. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 16:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of Dino Dvornik: Vidi ove Pisme

AfDs for this article:
The Best of Dino Dvornik: Vidi ove Pisme (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)

WP:NALBUMS nothing but a track listing which can be merged to main article if notable enough Oo7565 (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:46, 10 April 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 no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PEARL Institute of Management & Information Technology, Quetta

AfDs for this article:
PEARL Institute of Management & Information Technology, Quetta (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)

Not clear how this private institute might meet notability guidelines. Provided references are either primary ones, broken, or of unclear reliability. The complex name might be a factor but I'm having difficulty finding sources for this article. Reads like spam. RadioFan (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: According to WP:UNI guideline, "all colleges and universities are notable and should be included on Wikipedia". It is an accredited degree granting institute according to the Pakistan Higher education commission, affiliated to Virtual University, Lahore.[21][22] That said, the article is presently in a terrible shape, and needs major re-work, there's also issue of the article creator themselves making unconstructive edits.[23] SPat talk 21:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same guideline (WP:UNI/AG) also says that [i]t is also important to bear in mind that anyone can set up an institution and call it a "college" or, in many countries, a "university", so that it is essential to be clear whether an institution actually merits such a description. The article's references all link to the organization's homepage and Google returns almost no results for "PEARL Institute of Management and Information". Personally, I'd like to see at least one secondary source. — Rankiri (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think because of the accredition by Pakistan Higher Education Commission and the affiliation[24], it makes sense to call this a "college". As for secondary sources, I think this is a case of systemic bias, the region is a bit technologically backwards, and hence it should be difficult to find online secondary sources. I have found a passing reference in a news release[25], and one in a blog[26]. I am posting a message on WP:Pakistan to ask for help. SPat talk 22:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

aticle has been improved with references and external links —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davetobin (talk • contribs) 14:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. The references don't provide significant secondary coverage of the subject and I couldn't find better sources myself. If the article gets deleted, the author should take a look at WP:AFTERDELETE. — Rankiri (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems to have a real staff and real existence & is authorized to grant degrees. DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:29, 10 April 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 as per consensus and the absence of deletion calls beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O-Gon Kwon

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

Appears to be WP:BLP1E. Can't find anything else terribly notable about this judge in reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC) ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I can see why you'd think BLP1E, but he appears to have presided over two landmark trials and won an award from the President of Korea. That sound like evidence of notability to me. ALI nom nom 02:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "Moran Medal" appears to be given to many people for civil merit, and not highly notable. In fact, the "Moran" is a 2nd class medal. The 1st class is called the "Mugunghwa Medal." In terms of judging trials, that is just a normal activity for any judge. The media coverage just mentions him in passing as a judge of those trials - that is not something unique for a judge. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per ali --Tmckeage (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Noted judge in internationally prominent case - mentioned in the international press - recognised as notable by the Moran medal. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment The bulk of the material added in an attempt to establish notability in this diff [27] is not about O-Gon Kwon. It is about the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and about the Srebrenica’s massacre. While that content may be appropriate for articles on those topics, it appears to highlight the fact that O-Gon Kwon has notability from WP:BLP1E. The bulk of coverage of the tribunal and the trials associated with it either make no reference to Kwon, or mention him in passing as a judge associated with it. There appears to not be enough unique information highlighting his specific notability other than passing references associated with these. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being a judge of such seniority is notable. Notable in the sense of "worthy of note". Sources that verify his judicial positions are sufficient to form the basis of an article. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User: ali. Also his contrubutions and accomplishments at the national and international level is highly noteworthy. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 23:34, 10 April 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) 22:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Peregin

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

All that the article says is that he's a blogger and a reporter for a Maltese newspaper. That doesn't satisfy WP:BIO, and the sources cited don't satisfy WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080120/education/insite-blog-on-the-times-website clearly states that he was the CEO of Insite, however. The Times of Malta is a verifiable news source and therefore this article has no grounds for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianspleenovich (talk • contribs) 19:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no sign of notability. (Having been "CEO" of a group of dubious notability doesn't somehow make you notable). Hairhorn (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I didn't know student organisations had CEOs. Things have obviously advanced since my days there... Brianspleenovich's comment about the Times of Malta may well be true. Unfortunately "insite-blog-on-the-times-website" sounds very much like a blog for some reason that escapes me. And being the CEO of a student organisation doesn't confer notability. Peridon (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies - that is a mini-article about the Insite blog. I still don't think any particular notability is inherent in running a student blog site - not without knowing how many minions the Chief Executive Officer had. It is possible to be CEO, chief cook and head bottlewasher all at once in a small 'organisation'. Peridon (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC) (posted earlier but sig missed off)[reply]

The student company/magazine Insite no longer operates - its website is closed down, thus Christian Peregin is the the former CEO, subsequently why the article is dated 20th January 2008. Simply because it is in the past does not mean it did not happen. Furthermore, Insite is not of dubious notability - it was quite an influential magazine when it existed, in Malta.Brianspleenovich (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still seems to exist at http://www.insiteronline.com, although there's no reason to think a former "CEO" would be notable. Hairhorn (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you for finding that! It is notable to be a former CEO because it carries a strong word with the student community of Malta (an EU country). Due to the fact that Insite itself is a notable voice; its former CEO is as well. Furthermore, the page about Christian Peregin has information about him being a journalist for the Times of Malta - the most circulated English-language paper in the country - so is clearly notable on that account.Brianspleenovich (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the top editor of The Times of Malta is notable for being such, but not every single reporter on staff. I wouldn't say that every reporter at USA Today is notable by virtue of holding that job, even though that's the most circulated newspaper in the United States. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable, the former "CEO" of a student org nowithstanding. (GregJackP (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, but "carrying strong words" isn't one of the criteria of WP:BIO. No significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a newspaper reporter is not an inherent claim to notability. Nor is having been the CEO of an organization which itself has not been clearly established as notable yet. And two of the four "references" in this article don't even mention the subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:55, 10 April 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 g11, blatant advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accident emergency kit

Accident emergency kit (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 iPhone application, purely advertising Eeekster (talk) 01:52, 10 April 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) 12:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sessions of the United States Supreme Court

Sessions of the United States Supreme Court (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 is largely duplicative of List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by court composition. What's more, it seems to invent a definition of "session" and use it to name the article. "Session" could be used synonymously with "term", which nowadays lasts a year. Session could also be used to describe a block of a few weeks when the court sits to hear arguments and deliver decisions, or to the morning or afternoon argument sessions of a given day. Despite the flexibility of the word "session", I am not aware of its ever being used to describe a period where a particular group of justices serve. Rrius (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A look at Google books did not confirm that it is common terminology to call each change of composition of the court a "session." No references are provided in the article to confirm that is a correct usage. A more common usage was to refer to an occasion where the Justices had a meeting open to the public to hear arguments. Seems duplicative per the nomination. Edison (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the Supreme Court's website, the word "session" is used to describe just about any period of time from a term ("A Term of the Supreme Court begins, by statute, on the first Monday in October. Usually Court sessions continue until late June or early July.") to a single day ("When the Court is sitting, public sessions begin promptly at 10 a.m. and continue until 3 p.m."). It does not seem to be an official term of art as far as I can tell. Janus303 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 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 per consensus and added sources. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Kwong

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

A bit of a procedural nomination. I declined a speedy on this unreferenced BLP, since it didn't qualify under WP:CSD:CSD, but couldn't find any reliable sources for this (English+Machine translated Chinese), so I'm throwing it here. Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:34, 10 April 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project-builder.org

Project-builder.org (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)

Originally tagged for speedy, but 2 references are provided (although I'm not sure they're reliable). Not sure this website satisfies notability. Author of the article is also the developer of the software. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd commented on the Talk page of the article, but it seems people prefered to remove that talk instead of bringing elements to it. There are multiple other tools similar to project-builder.org which have a Wikipedia page in the same category. Buildout, one of the first in the list, has less content on the page, than I tried to gather for project-builder.org. Even if I'm involved with the tool, I tried to bring neutral information around it, similar to what is delivered in the related conferences mentioned on the page. I also remarked that you removed perfectly valid references I put in List_of_build_automation_software and Package_management_system where the project should be mentioned, as it is providing the same type of features than the OpenSUSE Build system e.g. which is mentioned. This was valid information which has then been removed, especially as the latest was updated 4 monthes ago without problem ! I'm ready to remove any text on the page that you find conflicting or not neutral enough, tha's perfectly understandable, but trying to avoid to mention tools which have all their places in these categories, and also make a dedictaed page for each of them, is unfair IMHO.-- User:Bcornec —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • Well, the main problem it that it doesn't show much evidence of notability. If there was significant coverage of the site by media sources or something, that would help. ALI nom nom 02:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't the fact that the project has been presented during European events such as the FOSDEM and the Libre_Software_Meeting a proof of notability ? It will also be presented again at LinuxTag in June 2010. All these disclosure of information are on public sites, some of them even providing a video of the presentation. Of course, it's not Apache or Mediawiki (yet ;-) but a lot of other smaller Open Source porjects also have a page on Wikipedia, which is fair. I just want to be able to appear at the same level in the related lists, and have also a dedicated page giving more detailed content (again, I'm ready to remove what is seen as promotion).

Bruno Cornec 18:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcornec (talk • contribs)

Hello Bruno, thank you for discussing. Presentations at events could, theoretically, be considered an ASSERTION of notability, but to satisfy Wikipedia's notability policy, it is important to provide citations from reliable sources. For example, has this received a write up in any trade journals or magazines? It does not have to be Time Magazine, but it should be some sort of publication. Try reading the Reliable Sources guideline, which may provide more advice on what is acceptable and what is not. If you do find things, please introduce them to the article. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:09, 12 April 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) 22:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kun Synkkä Ikuisuus Avautuu

Kun Synkkä Ikuisuus Avautuu (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)

Demos are non-notable per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 10 April 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) 22:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Salt (comics)

Black Salt (comics) (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)

Since the only content contributor to this article is someone clearly involved with the project (as evidenced by the use of the word "our" when adding promotional material to the page), I'm taking it to you fine folks to see if there is anything notable about this digital comic. A google search for "black salt" blackline appears to reveal only websites that are either affiliated with the title, publisher or creative team; or are regurgitations of press releases. Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 10 April 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Casa Sanchez Foods

Casa Sanchez Foods (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 company lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article is of course poorly written, and it doesnt yet establish solid notability, but i believe that this company CAN be shown to be notable. their products are ubiquitous through the sf bay area, one of the major metropolitan areas of the world. a little more sourcing should provide enough notability. unfortunately, i may not have the time or inclination to add this sourcing, so i can only hope that others will do so.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with comprehensive clean-up! Media coverage is not overwhelming, but I came across this in The Wall Street Journal. Favonian (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 10 April 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. Kevin (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Fiske-Harrison

AfDs for this article:
Alexander Fiske-Harrison (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 previous nomination (January 2009) cited self-authored sources, insignificant coverage, and probably could have been closed as delete. The issue is still the same. Marginally notable as a writer (blogger is probably more accurate) and his acting career fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Grsz11 22:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete same as my previous delete rationales, this guy hasn't recieved significant coverage in independant sources and the article was always intended to be promotional in nature. I'm glad to see this back at AfD. ThemFromSpace 01:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, the article needs WP:CLEANUP. But it might seem that despite no one doing so, it has possibilities, as the man and his theatrical works have been covered in reliable sources: Hampstead and Highgate Express, The Stage, The Guardian, The Times,The Telegraph, Time Out, and The Independent. It seems also that he also a writes for Prospect (magazine), Frieze (magazine), and The Times. And I'll have to do a search to see if his books get reviewed. If there had been only one or two articles about this fellow, I would not opine keep. Time to finally fix, yes... but not to toss. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the merits of these articles: Hampstead - his name is mentioned; The Telegraph a few sentences; Independent mentions his name; and the others are short short review write-ups, leaving us with just The Times. Grsz11 20:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You might want to look at, for example, the 10,000-word profile of him in The Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.52.15 (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment This nomination is either dishonest or astoninishingly lazy. The original nomination was about an article NOT one word of which remains. What is more, NOT one reference about me, was authored by me (I believe there are some articles clearly marked as by me to reference the fact that I have written for those publications.) Despite having left Wikipedia, I was contacted via my blog about this. This is the third AfD. Even if the first may have been a justified call which decided on keep, the second was not. This certainly is not. My research into bullfighting has been written about in the longest article ever written for the United Kingdom's first Newspaper of record, The Times, as it has been in the UK's second newspaper of record, Daily Telegraph, as the West End play I produced, wrote and acted in was reviewed by the UK's most senior theatre critic Michael Billington in the the UK's third newspaper of record, The Guardian. I believe many other references are there as well. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm somewhat bewildered by the nomination. Evalpor (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, but that's not a particular reason to keep. Grsz11 18:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for that. I'll amend accordingly: my vote to keep stands, per commentary by Schmidt,. Evalpor (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apologies for loss of temper. However, I quote from general notability guideline, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There is no way anyone could possibly claim that this standard has no been achieved and far surpassed. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's questionable how "independent" the most significant coverage (The Times) is, when it seems to be a friend writing about a friend. Grsz11 19:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      @ User:Grsz11: Are you now declaring that The Times somehow no longer has editorial oversite or that they have lost their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Wikipedia assigns RS to certain media because of the source's editorial oversight, and not to the individual writing for the paper. With the numerous other reliable sources have written about this individual allowing meeting WP:GNG, I myself have no doubt as to Hampstead and Highgate Express, The Stage, The Guardian, The Times,The Telegraph, Time Out, and The Independent all being respected and acceptble RS. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not at all what I said, just that I was unsure if we judge independence solely as whether or not the source is intended to be promotional? Even if that's not an issue, the original issues still remain in my mind. If somebody were to write an article about me, no matter how long-winded, it doesn't make me notable. Several articles have been presented, with varying degrees of relevance to the subject, that myself and others have found insufficient, that's all. As a perfect example, most of those articles simply mention the subject, mostly just in parenthesis to note he played that character. How more trivial can we get? Grsz11 20:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      We're not speaking about a WP:SPS or an Op-Ed piece. Many newspapers specifically send their reporters out to seek information about a subject they feel is worth covering. A newspaper's actively seeking facts to present to the reading public does not make them "dependent". Since The Times' is not owned nor controlled by Fiske-Harrison, their having a media interest in something they determine "worthy of note" does not mean they are somehow no longer independent. It's The Times' own editorial oversite and reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, pretty much assure their being "independent of a subject". As for reviews of his plays, certainly the reviews will be about the plays and "mention" him as playwrite. In is in the coverage of a playwight's work that act's toward the playwrite's notability. Butthis fellow is not a one-trick pony. Those reviews, in conjunction with the numerous other articles about the individual and the other subjects in which the individual took part show the notability required by guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Click on Google news search at the top of the AFD. Whats wrong with those four results? Seems like sufficient coverage to me. Dream Focus 18:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Convenient that Alexander just left messages for four users who voted to keep his articles in the past. Grsz11 19:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That remark is sarcastic and disingenuous abuse. ALL commenters on that AfD for this article voted keepwith the exception of one who has already commented here, . They also requested a merger of four separate articles, of which this is the result. The reason for the contact is because a further debate was requested by the admin. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A playwright whose play is produced in a internationally important centre like the West End, and reviewed by multiple major newspapers is notable, as the equivalent of writing a best-seller. This ran for only 25 days, but I cannot tell whether this was a previously arranged limited run. Playwrights are notable for writing plays, and a review of their work & a appropriate secondary source about both the play and the author. The career as an actor is borderline notable, but I think meets our standards--several leading roles in professional productions. But the book on bull fighting has yet to be written. The self-promotion is a little off-putting, but does not disqualify the article for notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't feel that simply having a play reviewed exhibits notability. In fact, most of the sources provided seem to ignore the fact that he is the writer, and instead only mention him as the actor, ie this one. Grsz11 20:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Again this statement is false. None of the reviews of the play cited in the article fail to refer to the author, or review the writing in detail, nor do those in The Stage, Time Out etc, the one in Tatler being a profile as author & actor. The play review you link to is a completely different play.--Fiskeharrison (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Looks like I mixed up my Pendulum with Pentameter. Still though. And the other point remains, it is canvassing. Why didn't you comment to all the people who thought your article should be deleted the first time it came up? Grsz11 20:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Yes, it does look you got mixed up doesn't it? Like you did about all the other articles you have discussed. (Who was The Times profile about in the end? And the relation to the person who wrote it? How about the Tatler profile?) I have no reason - and certainly no responsibility - to contact those involed in an AfD discussion over a year in the past about an article that bears no relation to this one. What I - and you - have a responsibility to is the wikipedia consensus that was reached in the AfD six months ago, following which actions were performed according to that consensual judgement, which you are arguing against. My commments are not canvassing: everyone from that AfD has been contacted. However, what you are doing is special pleading. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep one play does not a career make, but it has more than 2 reviews WP:AUTH: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Pohick2 (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep COI notwithstanding, this dude clearly meets the GNG based on the reliable sources currently included in the article. The deletion arguments seem to center on whether a particular SNG can demand his exclusion when the GNG is met, and it is my position that the GNG/SNG relationship is either/or, rather than both/and. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 12 April 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. JForget 00:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RagaChitra Foundation

RagaChitra Foundation (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 organization. DimaG (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no coverage about this organisation in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:44, 10 April 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 Relapse (album). Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insane (Eminem song)

Insane (Eminem song) (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 song. Not released as a single and is a low-charting song. Str8cash (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it charted and is one of Eminem's most grotesct songs of all time = Noteable. Im not going to say anthing else on the topic STATicVerseatide talk 01:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A song appearing on national charts is "probably" notable according to WP:Music. However, to quote the same article, "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article," which I am not convinced is the case here. - Vianello (Talk) 01:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since most of the sparse info in this article is already in the Relapse (album) article. The most exciting exception is the fact that "Insane" got to 85 on the Hot 100, which isn't even worth mentioning, if that's all there is to say about the song. There's not even enough here for a merge. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: STAT, please do not attack other editors, as you did here. Please remain civil. Thanks. —Mike Allen 02:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the album. The chart placing is worth mentioning, and it isn't mentioned in the album article. If it was added there, this could be redirected.--Michig (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This, unlike the others is well edited and has references, just lacks a bit.--Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It charted and has appropriate references. Deletion should not even be an option, since if this didn't meet the criteria for a standalone article, a merge or redirect to the album would be appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I have merged the chart info and purported release date (same as the album's, hmmm...) into the Relapse (album) article. It fits into one line so I haven't made a separate section with a header for redirecting to; the redirect on Insane (Eminem song) will need to just point to the album's article. The one thing that I haven't "merged" over is info about the Insane "skit", which seems unnecessary, confusing, trivial, and... well, not worth moving. This article is (I claim) ready for either deletion or editing with #REDIRECT [[Relapse (album)]] replacing the current content. (I don't know what one does with the Talk page for such a redirected page. Does that get a Redirect too?) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 10 April 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) 22:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Witches and Other Night Fears

Witches and Other Night Fears (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)

Demos are assumed non-notable by WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 10 April 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) 22:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Only the Beginning

This Is Only the Beginning (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)

Demos are assumed non-notable by WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 10 April 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. tended for a consensus to keep since the relist and WP:V/WP:RS/WP:N JForget 21:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini Cavegirl

AfDs for this article:
Bikini Cavegirl (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 was sent to AFD in 2006, the result was no consensus. The reasons for keeping were rather weak such as "More notable then most schools." and on the basis it was directed by a famous director. Since then the article has remained an unreferenced stub and appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (films) criteria. EuroPride (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep Full review at Digitallyobsessed, a review in Video Watchdog (to which I don't have access), reviews at genre-specific sites like Eccentric Cinema, with a decent synopsis at Allmovie-- enough to make this film "notable" enough for an article on its own. Add to this that the director is a major, currently-active cult director who, Google News search shows, gets wide coverage in reliable sources, and is bound to have full filmographies in cult film publications, and full reviews of his output. There is no good reason to delete it, and all indications are that, because of the highly notable director and cast, it will come back eventually even if it is deleted. Article is a fine stub as it is and has potential for significant expansion. Dekkappai (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying reliable sources exist is not the same as providing them. I don't doubt your good intentions. I do doubt that you can find a reliable source. Szzuk (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already sourced the article and shown that it's been reviewed at least twice. A third review was already there. I'm saying there are bound to be more to which I, not being familiar with Fred Olen Ray's work, don't have access. For one, I used to read magazines like Cult Cinema and Psychotronic Video 15-20 years ago, and I'm sure they-- and other good cult cinema publications-- must have written on Ray's films as they come out, including this one. All this article needs, in order to be greatly expanded, is an editor with an interest in Ray's work, who has a collection of sources. He's a highly notable cult director, and each of his films deserves coverage. We're just waiting for an editor who takes an interest in his films to take up the job. In the meantime, the article as it stands now is a perfectly appropriate stub. Dekkappai (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those references pan out as this 1) 4.0/10 and one comment review at imdb 2) a grade C and not worth watching review at digitally obsessed 3) a trivial mention on dogbytes and 4) a basically blank page on Hollywood upclose. Szzuk (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You think a Wikipedia article only exists if reviews state the subject is of a high quality? Then you're simply wrong. (What? An article on Hitler is a vote for him as a good leader?) But beyond that, this is a blatant mis-characterization of the sourcing. "Review at imdb"? Huh? There is no such reference in the article. "trivial mention on dogbytes"-- that is a citation to a discussion in Video Watchdog on the film's release. There is also a citation to a review of the film in that publication. I don't have access to that magazine. Have you looked at it and determined it "trivial"? I checked the other cited reviews, and saw that this was the only one listed in that issue for that page. "a basically blank page on Hollywood upclose" It's not "basically blank" it has a cast / character listing, and the only thing it's used for in the article is to source that. It is in no way used as a claim of "notability" either in the article or on this discussion. I'll repeat the above: "Full review at Digitallyobsessed, a review in Video Watchdog (to which I don't have access), reviews at genre-specific sites like Eccentric Cinema, with a decent synopsis at Allmovie." The article is sourced, the film has at least three reviews. It's notable, it should stay. Also, I suspect that since Fred Olen Ray is a major cult director with a large fan-base there is bound to be further sourcing out there which someone knowledgeable of the director would be able to contribute. We seem to have some communication problem here, so I'll leave it at that. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In as many words you've said the subject is low quality. So this is a low quality porn film. It doesn't matter who the director is, the article isn't about him, if he directed a film watching paint dry would that deserve its own page on wp? For simplicity i'll strike through the word 'review' and add the word 'comment' to my previous remark. Sources demonstrate verifiablity, they don't demonstrate notability. These 'sources' simply demonstrate this film isn't notable. Szzuk (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In as many words you've said the subject is low quality. So this is a low quality porn film." I have said no such thing. Huh? Of course we could have an article on a film about paint drying if it's sourced and reviewed-- Is there a WP policy against films about paint? Where the Hell are you getting this crap? OK, so it's not a communication problem. That was an attempt to "AGF" on my part. You are intentionally mis-representing sourcing and comments to bolster your wish to Delete the article. Glad we straightened that out. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "You think a Wikipedia article only exists if reviews state the subject is of a high quality?". That implies you think this film is low quality. I think a film about paint drying by this director would have its page deleted. I'm not misrepresenting anything. The word 'Delete' states my wish very clearly. Its a non notable porn film and you can add as many worthless sources as you like, that won't change. Szzuk (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For anyone looking at the article and its sourcing-- rather than judging its subject from a biased moral or artistic perspective-- I've just added coverage of the http://www.eccentric-cinema.com/ review. Note that this site was selected as one of Entertainment Weeklys "Best of the Web" for 2007. That makes-- that we know of so far-- two full-size reviews in reliable sources, and possibly a third one with the Video Watchdog citation. Easily passes WP:GNG. Dekkappai (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Ok, I concede, you won. But tell me how long have you been surfing for that dodgy porn review? I hope you can see the funny side of this! Lol. Szzuk (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Hi, Szzuk. I'm not sure what you mean-- the "eccentric-cinema" review? That was already at the article. The others I found without much effort, between my work on Japanese topics. If you mean the film-- It just caught my eye in the articles for deletion, Film project, and when I saw Ray's name, just figured it could be saved. I don't really think it's right to dismiss this kind of thing as "porn", like it's a cheap porn video. Ray is a cult-filmmaker, and he apparently dabbled in sexploitation with this one. That doesn't make it a disposable porn-vid. I look at it something like Ed Wood and his films. He's not "notable" because he was a great artist. His films aren't notable because they're great masterpieces of cinema. They're notable because they've been written about-- i.e., they've been "noted" in reliable sources... Dekkappai (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment ...and if you think this one is bad, you know what Fred Olen Ray is most famous for, right? Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers Dekkappai (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, I don't buy the argument myself, but I can't say I'm worried about it. But shouldn't the article be renamed to Teenage Cavegirl since that's the version all of the "references" refer to? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you don't buy the argument that if topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article, then you need to take that up at WP:GNG, because this film has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If the article survives this AfD, I would think the move would be appropriate too, as the current one refers to its cable TV title. It seems to be better-known by the original release title. Dekkappai (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I just don't agree with you that even the best source, the review in www.eccentric-cinema.com, is truly reliable enough to establish notability, that's all. But it's not a big deal, people acting in good faith often disagree. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Ah. I'd thought digitallyobsessed was more "reliable" in this case, because I've seen it used in several articles. I had my doubts about eccentric-cinema, but the "Best of the Web" thing should confer some "reliability"... although these are both review sites, and it's hard to doubt their "reliability" as sources of reviews. It's whether their reviews are important enough to quote that is the issue. And, yes, we could agree to disagree there. Dekkappai (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dekkappai's sources seem like significant coverage in the type of media that reviews this sort of thing. Dream Focus 11:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources now added to show notability. Lugnuts (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While this film may not be "worthy of note" in the mainstream, it apparently has received the significant coverage in reliable sources that is needed to create a presumption of notability on Wikipedia, per WP:N. The review on Eccentric-cinema.com, for example, seems to contribute to that presumption significantly. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements made since this AFD began, turning short stub into a decently encyclopdic start class article. Kudos to User:Dekkappai. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:44, 11 April 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) 22:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Promotion Only

For Promotion Only (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)

Demos are assumed non-notable by WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 10 April 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) 22:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1982 Grave Digger Demo

1982 Grave Digger Demo (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)

Demos are assumed non-notable by WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 10 April 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) 22:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Born Again Demo

Born Again Demo (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)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 10 April 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones Adventure (expose)

Indiana Jones Adventure (expose) (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. Even though this article may be different than Indiana Jones Adventure, it contains nothing that cannot be included in that article. This page thus constitutes a duplication of topic and therefore a violation of WP:CFORK per its very existence. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Separate Topic

The article is allowed under WP:CFORK. It represents a separate topic, that of the ride system shared by three attractions and containing similar elements to two others - backstage, hidden, effects, operation and secrets of the two attractions Indiana Jones Adventure and Indiana Jones Adventure (Tokyo) that are not the guest experience nor the attractions themselves. The article is not a duplicate. The separate topic is referenced by elements of both articles.

Retain this article to preserve the various spoilers and revealing details. If that can not be done, userify it to me. After careful consideration this method was chosen rather than expanding the bottom of Indiana Jones Adventure because it contains 'separate topics' relevant to both attractions, and preventing broken internal #name links. A daughter article also allows the separate topic information to be presented as well as allowing those readers who wish to temporarily suspend their disbelief to not read the spoilers until they have experienced the attraction for themselves.

With an allowed daughter article it is possible to retain these spoilers that would otherwise be lost if the article were simply deleted. KEEP Disneywizard (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional daughter article -> EMV*

The Enhanced Motion Vehicle should be a candidate for spinning off into an additional article. This would isolate the patent and operational details without spoiling the four articles that would reference it:

and very similar to

Disneywizard (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I tried redirecting this to Indiana Jones Adventure before, since this essentially duplicates that article. There's no reason any additional information can't be included in the other article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - When you redirected, you lost HUGE amounts of information that applies to three separate and distinct attractions.

DO NOT REDIRECT! READ BOTH PAGES CAREFULLY! THEY ARE NOT DUPLICATES! THEY ARE NOT CONTENT FORKS! THEY ARE SEPARATE TOPICS

This article Indiana Jones Adventure (expose) contains accurate details describing the construction, operation, methods and effects of the Indiana Jones Adventure. An appeal is made to allow the inclusion of this carefully considered spoiler page, in this special case. The main page, over the years, had evolved into a jumbled collection of facts, in distracting random order, and someone had ERRONEOUSLY merged a similar attraction in Tokyo. The expose page allows all of that superfluous information to be retained and neatly organized. It does not offer contested information, nor a conflicting point of view nor criticism. Both the parent article and the daughter article include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions. The original article contains a neutral summary of this daughter article. The daughter article is referenced by three similar attraction articles and explains effects common to them.

Case in point example - Three different railroads operate locomotives of the same class. That locomotive article stands separately. If each railroad company makes modifications, then the question becomes "Where does one describe those differences, in each railroad article (I would think), in the locomotive class article, or both? But one does not destroy the locomotive article because it is a duplicate to the three railroads. This effort is equivalent of spinning off the railroads and engines from their erroneous inclusion in Track.

This extraction and subsequent expansion follows closely the difficult separation of Indiana Jones Adventure (Tokyo), allows clarification of the original essay, allows reference by Dinosaur (Disney's Animal Kingdom), Indiana Jones Adventure (Tokyo), , Rocket Rods XPR, GM Test Track, Journey to the Center of the Earth (attraction) and the spin off of Enhanced_motion_vehicle - which is common to five attractions and similar to three others, without wiping out ESSENTIAL details shared by all. Disneywizard Disneywizard (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CASE IN POINT - Rolling Boulder

From the attraction page
The transport then approaches a dark area and stops. Indiana Jones™ suddenly appears in a shaft of sunlight, hanging from a rope above the vehicle.

"The Basket Game", 3:51 (Raiders of the Lost Ark)

He welcomes the adventurers rescue and bids us to turn on the headlights and prepare for boarding. The light illuminates a massive 16-foot (4.9 m) boulder, rolling toward the transport. The transport backs up a bit, as the boulder threatens to crush Jones and the adventurers. Suddenly the floor gives way at the last possible moment and the transport accelerates into the chamber below. A tremendous impact echoes, as if the boulder had crashed down nearly striking the transport. (spoiler)

This is a present tense contemporary topic from the rider's perspective. The rolling boulder doesn't move, the vehicle approaches it slowly. The vehicle never actually backs up, it can not, that would destroy the electrical power wipers on the guide beam beneath the slot. The floor never "gives way" because the room MOVES AWAY FROM THE VIEWER giving the illusion that the boulder is rolling through it. And in classic magical misdirection, while the attention is on the flashing focal point of the boulder no one notices that the chassis is proceeding DOWN past the crest of the track as the body lifts in compensation. The apparent motion is enhanced by the vehicle program shaking the FEELING of backing up, all the while moving forward as the room moves away. It is SO convincing that it should remain in print that way, as it has been written here since the beginning. Compare with the daughter article, which is all past tense, from the "beneath the track" point of view, and relates to three different, but similar attractions.

From the (expose) page
The rolling boulder doesn't move, the boulder is fixed in place and only rolls. The illusion is supported by the car slowly moving forward while Indy, the rope he is hanging on, and the entire room moves away from the viewer, at the speed of the boulder approach, giving the appearance of the boulder moving forward as the troop transport "backs up". One can verify this by looking at the floor during this scene, as well as by the "epiphany shot," from cinema, of zooming out while trucking in. To see the epiphany shot, simply turn around and look backward as this scene activates. The boulder is static and stationary as it rotates and provides plenty of clearance as the car elevates the load and the carriage descends on it's slow approach, keeping tall guests outstretched arms well outside a buffer zone.

They are clearly quite different points of view, allowed by WP:CFORK. Perhaps renaming the article to reflect the identical spoilers of all three adventures would work. What would be a better name? Disneywizard (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, where does any Wikipedia policy or guideline allow POV articles? Woogee (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right (sheepish grin) I misinterpreted WP:CFORK and after going back and re-reading it carefully I understand where I am in err. I will merge them. Give me a few days please. Disneywizard (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to a second page was considered unsuitable.

Originally I considered separating the spoiler information to a new "Spoiler" section expanded below the main article. Because of the organization of the information, that would duplicated headers, breakng #links. After careful consideration of the benefits and "pitfalls" of expanding the spoiler beneath the main article, I concluded that, like the extraction of the Tokyo adventure, an additional page was in order. This has the advantage that both attractions can reference the spoiler page to describe identical special effects. Disneywizard (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps renaming the article to reflect the identical spoilers of all three adventures would work. What would be a better name? Disneywizard (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a badly written, unnecessary content fork with too much duplication of Indiana Jones Adventure material. Anything relevant can be merged into the original article.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above reasons, and I also feel that the article is representative of a "fandom" intent instead of a strictly informative intent. 65.184.233.253 (talk) 12:32, 12 April 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 21:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Villa Hotel

Rich Villa Hotel (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 hotel. DimaG (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like a place that has a lot of notable history. There is no need to worry about advertising, since it does not exist anymore. Dew Kane (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has 34 Google hits. No sources in article. Article makes a lot of claims, but the interesting ones only peripherally mention the hotel. Abductive (reasoning) 02:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Abductive makes a good point. CynofGavuf 10:11, 10 April 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) 22:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rednetic Recordings

Rednetic Recordings (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 record label. DimaG (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no references and no hits in gnews. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:09, 10 April 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 B.G._(rapper)#Discography. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HollyHood (album)

HollyHood (album) (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)

Only two sources, and one of the sources makes no mention of the album. Direct violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Str8cash (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed, a Redirect seems plausible until the album has more information on it. Str8cash (talk) 02:06, 14 April 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) 22:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Kappa Rho

AfDs for this article:
Alpha Kappa Rho (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 student organization. No references from reliable sources WP:RS. Clubmarx (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable to the en.wikipedia. - Gabby 13:54, 12 April 2010 (PST)
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 School of Economic Science. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

School of Practical Philosophy

School of Practical Philosophy (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 org. Does not comply with inclusion guidelines WP:ORG no third party intellectualy independed sources dedicated to this topic. Wikidas© 19:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to School of Economic Science and protect. It's a valid subtopic, so don't delete, but there isn't enough for an article. I redirected this article some time ago with the edit summary of "Eh, let's just redirect it. I did research about 6 months ago to try and write a neutral article, but all the sources are on the SES in general." I believe this still holds true: there is coverage of the School of Economic Science, but not its New York branch (that happens to have a different name). Similar to how a small religion might be notable, but not every small offshoot. If the article is decided to be kept, I would recommend starting with this revision of the article as a stub.
Also, Flewiki: I recognize that you are trying to improve the article in good faith, but references to other Wikipedia articles don't mean much, and no one questions that the School of Practical Philosophy talks about Plato. The problem is coverage of the SPP itself from places that aren't the SPP's own website, not coverage of Plato. SnowFire (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most of those sources seem to only mention the topic in passing. "The Philosophical Spirit: from Plato to Nussbaum" isn't talking about this organization at all. I'm not sure the Johannesburg group is the same School of Practical Philosophy, and even if it is, they rented a building, big whoop. Hugh Jackman took a course with them once - but not really evidence it was a defining part of Jackson's life, and he's not really known for importance in philosophical/religious/etc. matters anyway. We don't include articles on a church only known because a future president of the US visited it for 6 months, for example, even if the president praised the church. The Record Online article is on point, but also super-short and seems like a filler piece.
Now, the one source that is relevant is the New York Times piece (which only came out 2 months ago which is why I missed it in 2008!). However, this was not a piece of reporting - this was the "City Critic" doing more a slice-of-life piece on something she personally did, the newspaper equivalent of a blog post. It's still a good source, but I'm not sure I'd want to pin the entire third-party notice of a topic on just this one article. And more to the point, I don't see why the School of Practical Philosophy can't be covered adequately in the School of Economic Science parent article. I think any content sourced to the NYT piece can surely be put into the SES article instead; a stand-alone SPP article would have perhaps 3 paragraphs, so no reason not to merge. SnowFire (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


As far as I can tell the School of Practical Philosophy is an independent organisation in its own right and not a branch of the School of Economic Science (SES). Thus, although appearing to share common aims, it could take independent initiatives, one example probably being the on-line courses. There is an obvious branch structure in the UK this all these being a single organisation; however, there are no legal/ownership links with organisations in other countries. Evidence for this can be found on the UK Charities Commission's website where the SES accounts and many other details are published. Information on the Wikipedia page used to indicate that SPP was a branch of SES, but this has been corrected. Therefore I cannot see why the School of Practical Philosophy should be deleted or redirected to School of Economic Science. I support its continuation as a separate page, but also would encourage the efforts of those improving it. wikirpg (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note --On it's own this educational insititution does not have intellectually independed sources or have been included on a list of any notable institution in education. The school has never received an award or a notable honor. SES may be notable, but this is an idependend school and thus should be accessed on it's own merit. The adverts and promotional reviews and pres-releases do not qualify as independent of the subject. Wikidas© 14:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point on the lack of independent sources. However, the remedy would best be to establish more sources, or else just waiting whilst those that are involved with it (pro, anti, or neutral) do so. Deleting an article on an independent charity just because it is poorly referenced would remove thousands of articles from Wikipedia. In my view this article should be neither deleted nor redirected.wikirpg (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to stress that notability is established by independent reliable sources. If notability is not established the only other solution I see is merging it into the SES article as a sub section. We can not compromise on the basis that other stuff exists - no notability means delete.Wikidas© 23:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with SnowFire that the regional NYT piece alone is insufficient and I couldn't find any additional WP:RS coverage myself. — Rankiri (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; the weird subway ads[original research?] alone give it much attention, and colleges are usually notable. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question, is this a college? From what I can see they offer no degrees. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Snowfire. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into School of Economic Science. Sources are weak but the content is salvageable. External links can take a hike. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been expanded a good amount. SilverserenC 19:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If its published in a newspaper, it doesn't count as a blog. Just like a film or play that gets reviewed by someone is notable, so is this school. Dream Focus 06:06, 17 April 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) 04:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EventPilot

EventPilot (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 iPhone software for which I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. Contested PROD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as failing WP:N. The anonymous user who contested the PROD answered the call for reliable sources with a link to the software's website. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all fairness, something went wrong with my PROD message, I didn't really mean for the whole message to be "reliable sources]]"!  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EventPilot is mentioned directly on the Learning Solutions 2010 iTunes connect page just under description: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/learning-solutions-2010/id359539674?mt=8# As for deletion, this article does not qualify for the statement below in the "deletion policy"

Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)

The article states the existence and the "relevant" features of the product (in the same way RoboHelp does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_RoboHelp). There are a multitude of examples of software products with wikipedia articles that are not used for advertising or spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.52.14 (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 10 April 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natchez Trace (band)

Natchez Trace (band) (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 is a bit of a mess -- the topic(s) of the article is/are not clearly defined and the notability of the topic(s) is/are not apparent. The article, as currently written, is mostly about the fact that several different bands (actual number undetermined) with the name "Natchez Trace" have existed, and several currently exist. Most of the information about these bands has been derived from the musicians' own websites. There's barely enough information in the sources to reliably distinguish between the different bands, and I have not seen solid evidence that any of them are notable according to either WP:GNG or WP:BAND.

In its current form (content may be different by the time you read this), the article has a modest amount of information about two bands by this name. (Aside: Both are described in the article as "country and western" bands, although neither band uses the word "western" to describe itself.)

One of the bands is a regional band from Decatur, Alabama, whose main claim to fame is being the opening act for concerts by several big-name musicians. That band self-reports that it has won some minor awards, none of which are described in Wikipedia articles. This probably is a decent country band, but I don't see substantial third-party coverage or the kinds of accomplishments listed at WP:BAND.

The second band (first one discussed in the article) is one of several groups that a performer named Brent Woodall has been associated with. I get the impression from his website that it's a group of Nashville studio musicians and songwriters who periodically get together in mix-and-match bands that tour and record their own music. There's a little more third-party coverage of this group of musicians than there is of the first band, and they say they had some recordings on the indie charts, but the information is very sketchy. It seems likely to me that Brent Woodall will turn out to be notable, but his individual bands may not be.

My limited web research leads me to believe that the "Natchez Trace" band with the strongest claim to notability probably is a folk or country (??) group that existed in the early 1970s, probably in the UK. That band recorded an album called Best of the Immortal Natchez Trace in 1975, Sweet Folk LP SFA 048.[30]. That album included a song called "Strutt's Strut", suggesting that this is the band that British musician Nick Strutt belonged to. (His membership in a band called Natchez Trace is mentioned in passing in the last paragraph of the current article.) I found several eBay listings for a UK-recorded album called Last Time Together that was recorded by a 3-man "Natchez Trace" group in 1972. Another UK album by Natchez Trace being sold on eBay is "From Natchez to Nashville." One of the eBay listings mentioned Nick Strutt in the listing (the only musician named).

There seems to have been a U.S. "acoustic rock" group by this name later in the 1970s. It is claimed to be the progenitor of a legacy-style rock band by this name that is based in Michigan and is not currently discussed in the Wikipedia article. This online news article tells about a Michigan musician who did sound for "Natchez Trace" in 1975 and traveled to California in 1976 with the band and its manager, Ed Kettle, who got the band a publishing deal with Martin Cohen, who published the Eagles. I haven't found any other indication of possible notability for the current Michigan band. To add to the confusion, the Michigan band's website includes a mention of yet another "Natchez Trace" band that had earlier existed locally in Michigan.[31]

It is possible that some or none of these bands are notable, but it is pointless to have an article in article space until the bands can be clearly distinguished from one another and the notability of individual bands can be determined from information derived from reliable sources. I think this article should stay in user space while information is compiled. I have encouraged the article's creator to userfy it (and later I userfied it for him), but he is insistent that it belongs in article space unless deleted through an AfD process, so here we are. Orlady (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification (sort of): The article seems to reference yet another band, out of Dallas.[32] This was the one that was a Terry Award nominee (not winner) for Ft Worth Band of the Year. I don't think it's related to the others mentioned, but am not sure. The album Turn Up the Jukebox might be by one of these bands or some other. Station1 (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks to Station1 for supplying that "clarification" -- or increase in confusion, as the case may be. To recap, there are at least five different bands by this name (four U.S. bands in Decatur, Alabama; Nashville, Tennessee; Dallas, Texas; and Michigan; plus one U.K. band); the bands play several different styles of music; there is very little information available about any of these bands; when shards of information are found, it often is difficult to tell which of the bands a particular factoid applies to; there is insufficient information to assess notability, but little reason to think that most of these bands are notable; the current article attempts to cover at least two or possibly all of these bands, although they are unrelated except by name; and the article appears to misattribute some details to the wrong band(s). All in all, it doesn't belong in encyclopedia main space. --Orlady (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of the confusion derives from the deletion-nominator's own efforts. The deletion-nominator and I both have been running Google searches on "Natchez Trace" and bumping into band coverage, due to a dispute started by the deletion-nominator over routine disambiguation of the term "Old Natchez Trace" to cover several U.S. National Register of Historic Places-listed places of that name. Dispute started by the deletion-nominator's deletion of a disambiguation page. In discussion at Talk:Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation) and/or in related pages, I have referred to the deletion-editor's efforts as showing apparent malice. There is a lot of history here.
About the deletion-nominator's own views on the band(s), the deletion-nominator herself (her choice to give gender) added a red-link from the Nick Strutt article to "Natchez Trace (band)" several days ago, which i had not noticed until i created the current article about the current bands and checked "what links here". That introduced some of the confusion. The deletion-nominator has also stated to me that "I share your view that this probably is a notable topic". Seems like some tags and/or some fixing are in order, but this AFD smells bad! --doncram (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If anything smells bad, it's the article. I did not "add" a redlink to Nick Strutt; rather, I discovered a link in that article that was blue because it incorrectly pointed to Natchez Trace, and I converted it to a redlink pointing to Natchez Trace (band). As for my comment that "this probably is a notable topic," you are quoting me out of context. I went on to say: "However, the article that you created is not ready for prime time. It should be moved into your user space, without a redirect, until it is better developed and notability is clear. I am making this comment so as to give you the chance to move the page yourself and request speedy deletion of the redirect. If you don't do it yourself, it is likely to be done for you (not necessarily by me)." --Orlady (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting that i am trying to misrepresent by selective quoting, suggesting at my talk page just now that i am the antagonistic one and that I am perhaps misogynist too, and plenty of other instances show bad faith abundantly present. Since my comment above, she has redirected a different article i created, too! I am dumbfounded by the heaps of abuse being spewed by Orlady at various Talk pages. I have previously and again requested that Orlady just stop. It's amounting to wp:harassment. It is making the editing environment intolerable.
About this band article, I think it is beyond my ability now to deal with Orlady's attention on this to her satisfaction. If another editor or two would step in to improve the article, i would be grateful. --doncram (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, i Oppose deletion of the article; I !vote for Keep. It is not "pointless" to have this article. It's worthwhile to have the article if only to sort out the relationships of multiple bands of the same name, like in a set index article on bands of the same name. I so far chose to focus on the 2 bands that seem most prominent; i became aware of the Michigan band but did not choose to comment on it. Perhaps the article should evolve to cover that too. Starting an article at this level may not be how Orlady wants for the wikipedia to be developed, in general, and/or she is finding it personally interesting to attack this article associated with me personally. I do think her focus upon my edits has morphed into a vendetta. Stub articles are in fact allowed in Wikipedia. The article's content is sourced, generally reliably enough for the assertions included. There is no damaging information or BLP issues present. --doncram (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no notability for any of these bands, the awards appear minor, the charting not good enough. Having a notable member does not make a band notable. Articles don't exist to tell us about non notable bands that happen to share the same name. Even if they were notable they would be on seperate pages with disambiguation to identify and find them. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just added info based on Orlady's research above about the Nick Strutt one of these bands to the article. It seems to have 3 albums at least; I note that the wp:band criteria states that having 2 albums on a major label meets the criteria for notability. Also, Orlady seems to believe that one is notable. Also there is plenty of other info in the article already. If you wish, call this an article about that notable band, with bonus of the article mentioning other bands of the same name. Or call this a set-index article, see wp:SIA, which serves a function like disambiguation. It seems useful to identify out the various bands of this name, for clarity, so that the notable ones among them can be properly covered. It would seem unhelpful to lose the work done so far in sorting this out, which would just make it harder again in the future to sort out the facts about the one or two or three of these that the deletion-nominator and i actually believe are in fact notable. The AFD, again, seems to be about the deletion-nominator's wish to punish me personally, or something like that, for having created a stub article not up to her personal standards. Again, it is okay in Wikipedia to have stub articles. --doncram (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those additions do not change the basic situation -- this page still does not deserve to exist in article space. This is a collection of poorly sourced factoids and "seems to be" statements about several different entities (i.e., bands) that share the sane name. Although it is true that I have said that I think at least one of these bands probably is notable, notability has not yet been demonstrated for any of them. In response to the statement about stub articles -- yes, Wikipedia does have stub articles, but only about notable topics. Similarly, set-index articles do exist in Wikipedia, but not when none of the items indexed in the article is independently notable.
As for the statement that I "wish" to "punish" Doncram for creating an article not up to my "personal standards," I reiterate my past pleas for Doncram to refrain from interpreting disputes as personal attacks -- and please note that the "standards" expressed in Wikipedia policies and guidelines are supposed to apply to everyone's contributions. --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the situation would be resolved if the deletion-moderator, who repeats that she thinks the topic is notable, would improve what she views as poor sourcing. This does have sources. Meanwhile, there are 38,000 entirely unsourced BLPs in Wikipedia.... --doncram (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This isn't about the person who nominated the article for deletion, nor is it about the person who created the article. It's about the article. Although I have said that I think it likely that one or more of the bands called "Natchez Trace" is notable, that's just a hunch. Even if one of these bands turns out to be notable, that would not make the topic of this current article (which is best described as an article about the fact that multiple bands have used this name) notable. I've looked online for information that could substantiate the notability of any of these bands, and I haven't found it. Therefore, I've concluded that the page doesn't belong in Wikipedia article space. Seeing that the person who created the article also isn't interested in documenting the notability of the subject matter, I guess it's time to delete the article. --Orlady (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the situation would be resolved if the article creator would acknoweldge that this page does not belong and call for it's deletion. This page does have sources but they are not independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, although the article creator doesn't have any actual interest in the subject matter of the article, he has made it clear that he's going to insist that it be maintained in article space until such time as an AfD process concludes that it should be deleted. Here's what happened when I userfied the article:
21:42, 1 April 2010 Orlady (moved Natchez Trace (band) to User:Doncram/Natchez Trace (band): Moving to user space so article (or possibly multiple articles) can be developed properly. There are questions of notability, and it appears that this article may confound multiple bands)
22:14, 1 April 2010 Doncram (moved User:Doncram/Natchez Trace (band) to Natchez Trace (band) over redirect: return to mainspace. This is legitimate article with assertion of notability. Mover's focus on this seems a lot like malice. Take to AFD if you wish.)
He is making a WP:POINT, and the continuing existence of this article seems to help make his point (not that I can tell you what he's trying to prove). --Orlady (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell you what Orlady is trying to prove either. She has been following my edits and randomly picking one or another to attack, as if on a personal vendetta, like to find places where i can be proven wrong on some point or another. It often amounts to her finding a different way, not necessarily a better way, to present something. In the process, in trying to prove me wrong, she often makes outright errors and often creates presentations that are more than arguably worse than what she is replacing. Her point seems to be that another way is possible, anything other than the way that i chose. I do have difficulty hearing / sorting out Orlady's legitimate points, which she does sometimes make, because they are mixed in with falsehoods and errors and personal jabs. There is a long and lengthening history here. I would welcome third party views about this article, separate from Orlady's, which i have to discount. --doncram (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This WP:AFD section is for discussing this one specific article, not discussing (much less attacking) other people. The above paragraph does not belong here. If you wish to present a list of offenses that I have allegedly committed, including but presumably not limited to "following edits", "randomly picking one or another to attack", pursing a "personal vendetta," making "outright errors", "creating presentations that are more than arguably worse than what she is replacing", "falsehoods and errors and personal jabs", please move your accusations to an appropriate noticeboard -- and provide diffs to substantiate your accusations. --Orlady (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! What a joke! What a fine speech! What rubbish! Ha ha ha! You have me ROTFL. The hypocrisy is astounding! I have, so many times, asked you at your Talk page to participate in a mediation process, and you have either said no or not replied. Gimme a break. Give everyone else a break. When you are serious about actually stopping the long-running contention between you and me, which spills like diarrhea throughout hundreds of Talk pages and snide, sarcastic edit summaries of hundreds of mainspace articles by now, please, PLEASE, do let me know!!! Ha ha ha ha ha! How amusing!!!! Fines speech!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ah ha ha!!!!! --doncram (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, i do not acknowledge that this should be deleted. I think it is a legitimate wikipedia article topic. I will admit freely that i am not an expert on bands / music notability practices in wikipedia. I have created only a few articles in the music area, and it is not easy for me to find good sources and construct fully accepted solid references like other music articles have. I also acknowledge this article is currently a bit different than other band articles that I have browsed, in that it is about a host of bands of the same name, of which one or two or more are likely to be individually notable. I believe that it covers enough points of albums and awards and so on that there is clearly notability here, for individual ones and/or for the collection. I don't see in the music notability standards a specific example of a set index article on bands. Can you point me to one? It seems not to be banned by policy nor to be explicitly approved by policy. Given that it may exist as a set index article on the multiple bands, or that it may be converted into an article about one with a discussion of other bands having the same name, I think this is valid and it should be kept and improved. --doncram (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have reviewed the references in the article and have been unable to find any reliable sources for any of the bands discussed in the article. As such, the article should be deleted for failing Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability (music).

    If/when sources can produced to establish the notability for any of the bands discussed in the article, an article about that topic can be created. Cunard (talk) 02:13, 18 April 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countenance divine

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

a phrase used once by Blake is not a topic for an article Tb (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The page exists as a See Also in And did those feet in ancient time, a Blake poem which uses the phrase. The only other real link to the page is a mistaken link for "countenance" at Jerónima de la Asunción. The page simply defines "countenance" and "divine", offers a vague and unreferenced theological speculation about some roughly panentheistic theory, and a few vague other observations or speculations. It was added to WikiProject Christianity, and rated "stub" and "low importance". Nearly all the edits have either been the addition of bits of unsourced speculation, or maintenance. Tb (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve.andycjp (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliably sourced by the end of this AfD period. This doesn't seem like a genuine doctrine. bd2412 T 03:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I would say just because you don't like the page doesn't mean others won't be interested to read it. Just because you don't have any original thought of your own doesn't mean other people don't. Stick a reference to me and put numbers on it if it makes you happy. There is more to life than studying what already is - there is also creation of the new - without which people like you wouldn't have anything to study in the first place. Barjon (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the "original thought" part that makes it unencyclopedic. See Wikipedia:No original research. Perhaps, however, you might be able to find an existing article into which this material can properly be merged. bd2412 T 13:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I see Wikipedia as a universal library of information for all people. It should not be exclusive to scientifically verifiable articles only. It should also incorporate articles containing original thought. To solve the problem, all we need to do is invent a little tag we can apply to paragraphs that states it is original thought. That way people will be quite aware of what they are reading. Then, those who want to study and reference can do so to their hearts content, and those who want to add original ideas can do so to their hearts content. Everyone is happy. That is the way it should be. Barjon (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What you see Wikipedia as is really not relevant here; if it doesn't meet our standards for inclusion, we don't include it. Original research is specifically excluded and this is not the place to debate the wisdom of that policy. Tb (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where is the best place to discuss this policy? I think it would make Wikipedia a better place with something as simple as an Original Research tag. Barjon (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, leaning to merge into And did those feet in ancient time, and redirect. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we merged, what text would we keep for the merge? Tb (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:V. The phrase is found all across literature in Google Books. I think this article was meant to find its place at WP:RESCUE, not here. With regards, AnupamTalk 08:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would you have the article say? Is there anybody who talks about the phrase as a subject for discussion in its own right? Or is your argument that any string of English words which occurs frequently is worth an article? Never mind that the vast majority of those books simply reprint Blake's poem. Do any discuss the phrase? Tb (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and start over. The basis of the article is the OR attempt to equate use of "countenance" as a verb, meaning approve or tolerate, with the noun, meaning the "face"--see Wiktionary -- OED, as expected, has a number of other uses also. To say that when Blake used it to mean the Face of God is the same as if he used it to mean the Approval of God is something that would need sources, not speculation--and, if dictionaries are any guide, highly unlikely. The various citations above use it in a variety of meanings. I usually try to rescue an article, but when it is based upon an odd but unstated hypothesis, it's better to start over. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article expounds upon a phrase from a poem. Poetry is an art and is meant to be left open to interpretation. With the theology, just add tags to say "this article / paragraph is original research based on the views and opinions of the author(s) and may or may not reflect the views and opinions of others". Barjon (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We delete OR, as one of our most consistently applied policies, and the entire article is OR, as you have just confirmed. See WP:NOR. DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would say keep the article. Add the new OR tags as suggested above, and if and when more specific information becomes available on what Blake was actually thinking when he wrote it, then we can open-up a hardcore can of formal referential material on the article. Barjon (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please take your campaign elsewhere to abandon the policy against original research in Wikipedia. Tb (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is an essay on a particular phrase in a well-known poem/hymn, but a somewhat peculiar poet. Possibly redirect to an article on the whole poem. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article contains very little about its subject. If "Countenance divine" is a valid topic for an encyclopaedia, I would expect a list of books, hymns and poems where the exact term has been used, in addition to Blake's use in Jerusalem. I would not expect an article on every phrase used by William Blake in his poetry. It would also expect referenced opinions why the term is important in Christian theology. It should have no personal speculations about what it might mean and certainly no weasel words such as "generally taken to mean". At present there is no evidence that it will progress beyond someone's personal musings. JMcC (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Blake poem is notable, but this phrase isn't. Also the article is entirely unreferenced OR. -- Radagast3 (talk) 15:26, 15 April 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 no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bentley Jones

Bentley Jones (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)

Dubious notability, only claim to fame rests on the back of SEGA. A good chunk of the sources come from the artist's blog, the artist's Twitter account, or from blogs owned by SEGA or by their employees. ShawnIsHere (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom ShawnIsHere (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Artist has widespread presence in international press and online communities. He has had several high profile releases including a major label album and single (EMI Music Japan) which was widely reported in the Japanese press. Other releases and productions are currently available from retailers around the globe and have been for very notable artists and labels (cited sources). Request for page deletion seems uninformed, perhaps a request for source improvement would be more appropriate. DolphinBlueUK (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe, but I still stand by my nomination, for the simple reason that I fail to see any notable sources outside of SEGA and other related sources has not been established adequately in the article's lifespan. ShawnIsHere (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks coverage in independent reliable sources (if there is widespread presence in international press why can't we see it? and why is it sourced by non independent, non reliable sources?) nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 10 April 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. On the strength of the work Landsake has done on it so far, and in the absence of further objections. Shimeru (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damion Suomi

Damion Suomi (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 A7 but notability asserted. Likely autobiography or PR by WP:SPA Landsake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This looks to me like a case of using sources tangential to the subject to give an appearance of non-trivial coverage. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep The Paste magazine article is one reliable source with significant coverage. The review in AbsolutePunk is also significant coverage in what appears to be a reliable source. Some of the other refs are local papers or local entertainment websites with significant coverage, but they are not as strong in terms of being well known reliable sources treated as such by other reliable sources, in other words a bit "bloggy." There is a passing reference in Esquire and brief mentions of upcoming performances in other newspapers. See Google News Archive: [33]. Edison (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how to respond to this. Firstly, I am not in any way affiliated with Mr. Suomi. I don't know how to prove that to you, but this isn't a PR page. Is mine a WP:SPA? People who know me would find that funny. Like, I would imagine, most editors here, I have a broad variety of interests. It's just that everybody's got to start somewhere, right? I first became acquainted with the music of Damion Suomi in early 2008 and have since watched his reputation grow by leaps and bounds. You'll see the most notable of my citations are within the past month. I would offer that in response to any claim of A7 status. That, and also a question: Can we really say The Rolling Stones are "important"? Sure, they're awesome, but importance can only truly be measured by impact over time, which would put all modern musicians (The Killers, The White Stripes, Foo Fighters, etc.) into the A7 heap. And not to out anybody, but why is Damion Suomi any less important than Jenny Owen Youngs (a musician for whom I have great admiration)? Her page has only two citations and, while one is from The New York Times (an article, I might add, that is about struggling New Jersey musicians in general, not only her; unlike the cited Paste Magazine feature on Mr. Suomi), the other is a reference to the artist's own website. So, yes, some of my citations are a bit "bloggy," though in no way "tangential," as they are in all cases either direct reviews or interviews with the artist himself. But perhaps I'm missing the point. As I stated before, I don't know how to respond to this. It seems to me that in art, if a person is notable, he must needs be important ... to someone. Landsake (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added two new citations from Blurt and Spin Magazines. Admittedly, the latter actually is somewhat tangential, but I figured, Spin Magazine's not exactly covering local shows, so even a tangential reference there has to be good. I understand the article is a little weak, but I am trying to improve it. Any tips would be appreciated. Landsake (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 10 April 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) 03:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabi Scardi

Gabi Scardi (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's autobiography. Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete From a google of her name I can find several pages about her, however as from the user's name who created the article and the fact it states "Curriculum Vitae" at the top of the article I would say delete as it is being used for advertisement. I would not oppose a properly cited article about the person however. Miyagawa (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article itself is clearly a self-promotional autobiography, and I think could probably be safely speedied under G11. Given that it is, in addition, an unreferenced BLP, we could safely delete it under our policies. However, the Gnews search [34] gives us a fair amount of sourcing, albeit in a foreign language, with the subject being interviewed and referenced as a prominent art critic, so I think underlying notability is there. The closing admin is invited to regard this as a keep !vote if the article is cleaned up and sourced by closing time, or delete otherwise, at the admin's discretion. RayTalk 15:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 10 April 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 Historical European martial arts#Reconstruction. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magisterium (fencing)

Magisterium (fencing) (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 indication of meeting WP:N, though there could be German or Czech sources that my Google search did not find.  Sandstein  11:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not an expert in this field. An article published by a respected Czech magazine Týden reports that Magisterium is ...apparently the most famous school of historical fencing in the Czech Republic... ...around 4.000 students underwent training in the school... etc. On the other hand, this seems to be the only reliable mention outside of Czech, German and Slovak blogs and fansites (e. g. Mittelalter-ABC). Vejvančický (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete(weak) I wanted to say keep, but it is interesting that for something 'important' in Czech Republic and Germany, that it doesn't seem to have any entries in the German or Czech wikis. (I could be wrong about the latter, as I don't read Czech, but none of the references to Magisterium SEEMED to be about fencing.)David V Houston (talk) 23:41, 10 April 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) 22:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pulparambil

Pulparambil (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)

PROD removed without addressing the concerns. The article is about a local family in Kerala. I cannot find anything to establish the notability of this family except that there are people with this family name. Salih (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 10 April 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 Blond Ambition World Tour. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's Breathless

AfDs for this article:
She's Breathless (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 notability per WP:MUSIC. Limited promotional release, never available to the public, no chart positions. Paul75 (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 10 April 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) 22:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Elter

Sheldon Elter (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. DimaG (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, no sources to support the claims. --Rirunmot 00:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People counter

People counter (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 has been a spam magnet since creation, every single reference in it was a link to some company's product claims and the external links section was just a spam farm (I've just blacklisted one repeat offender). The article itself reads as a personal essay. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep based on what it looked like before it was cleansed [35]. If the article were solely based on one corporate website, it would be advertising. Posting links to the sites of multiple companies, however, is a legitimate means of sourcing. While book and news links would be a welcome addition, there are some products that are not interesting enough to get a lot of coverage. You're to be credited, of course, for helping this article keep a neutral tone, but blacklisting the entire subject is not helpful to Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 April 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) 22:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast Targa

East Coast Targa (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 event. DimaG (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of nobility. I would have put this through prod. The only source is a link to a forum quoting a letter about how the event has been canceled.--Banana (talk) 22:51, 11 April 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) 22:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bareback Mountain

Bareback Mountain (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 has been tagged for notability concerns since January 2008. It may not meet Wikipedia:Notability (films) criteria. EuroPride (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable porn film. The references (two gossip column citations and a calendar event) don't meet WP:RS requirements. Warrah (talk) 12:20, 10 April 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) 22:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiidentorni

Hiidentorni (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)

Demos are assumed non-notable by WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 April 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 Digital_Playground#Directors. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator so consider this a keep close. However, redirecting per WP:BLP as the article currently lacks independent sources. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robby D. (director)

Robby D. (director) (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)

Prod removed with no reason given. Article fails to establish any level of notability. EuroPride (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, multiple noominations for Adult Video News Awards. Woogee (talk) 06:35, 10 April 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) 22:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Varjoissa

Varjoissa (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)

Demos are non-notable per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 April 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. No arguments to keep. Kevin (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan McGuire (writer)

Duncan McGuire (writer) (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 sources in this article are not sufficient to establish notability, and I can't find additional coverage from reliable sources. Cassandra 73 (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - He has not finished his novel as far as I can tell. in fact, I can't even find any evidence of publication of any of his works. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 April 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) 22:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valiance

Valiance (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. Neologism of questionable notability. Completely unsourced - no indication of widespread usage - seems like something that was made up. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This one was hard to Google for, but I couldn't find anything reliable. The word in the sense given in the article appears to be based on only the creator's point of view, and s/he goes on to list television shows that have characters that might be considered "valiant". (The article was also created by an SPA.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note:Article has been moved; redirect is still apparently correct. --NYKevin @968, i.e. 22:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save It. I have heard that word before on facebook and other websites, and is not a fake word, and the description is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AyaHassanien (talk • contribs) 16:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC) — AyaHassanien (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Save It. I do not see how the article is biased to the creator's point of view— Golden22Taylor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 April 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) 22:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hayes (Social Media expert)

Christopher Hayes (Social Media expert) (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 article reads as a resume (WP:PROMOTION), and the references are all press releases and a mention in an inconsequential listing. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As an adjunct faculty member teaching a class in continuing education he certainly fails WP:PROF, so any notability must rest on his business accomplishments, but I don't see anything there either. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 11 April 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) 20:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of vegans

List of vegans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
  • Turn into a Category, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This list is potentially endless, and thus unwieldy. Something more specific would work, but this article works better as a category. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pray keep - until we are done working on it. Don't you know that we are going to move entries from the List of vegetarians to there? That will take some time so pray, pray let us work on it first. And about the categorisation, no it will NOT do because cats cannot contain references, so who will verify whether the cats are correct? And remember, there are lots of dynamic lists on Wikipedia that are 'endless'. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not know, you probably should have put a {{underconstruction}} tag at the top if there was a major edit going on. Nevertheless, there could be eventually thousands of people on this list. I wouldn't mind if it was more specific somehow so there was more stringent criterion of getting on the list, but as it is now, this list is better as a category. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - can you at least wait till we are done with the article? Like List of vegetarians, we are going to change it greatly so that the list is a lot better than its present state. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, I can take it off if you want until you're done, but I don't think it would change my opinion. It seems like any notable person who passes BLP and gets a media link somewhere that they're rumored to be vegan could theoretically be on this list, it'd take alot of oversight to keep track of that, it'd be alot easier if it was a category since those are generally less seen, and thus the newbies don't use them as much. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm afraid your final statement is incorrect. In both the list of vegans and vegetarians, our inclusion criteria is that the person has an article on Wikipedia - any language Wikipedia. Therefore the number of people is limited. Also, we use only RELIABLE sources, so rumours cannot be here. Finally, if someone's vegetarianism/veganism is disputed or lasped, we'll label them as such. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I really am not a big fan of deletion on the basis of the possibility of an article expanding endlessly, since in my experience it never happens. It's not like we're going to start adding random people to the list, unless they happen to be notable people with their own Wikipedia articles. This is also one of the best-referenced lists I've ever come across. —Soap— 12:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are plenty of vegetarian/vegan lists all over the internet so there's obviously enough interest to sustain a list of this nature. The list has been referenced by The Independent [37] so the notability of this particular list has been established through a third party reliable source, and not many Wikipedia articles can claim that. If the list becomes unwieldy then we can tackle the problem if and when that problem arises, but as pointed out above the list is finite since it is limited to notable people with a dedicated article on Wikipedia. As Kayau has indicated, categories don't permit sources and the information is not centralised so it becomes impossible to maintain. List of vegetarians was also put up for deletion but the decision was to keep the article, so if the decision is made to scrap this article we will simply transfer the names over to that list, but the current consensus is to have a hard split between vegetarians and vegans. Betty Logan (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:CLS. The list looks manageable: Category:Vegans by nationality currently contains less than 300 entries. — Rankiri (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Doc Quintana that this article should be a category. It has never been very good, never could possibly hope to be complete, is nearly impossible to find reliable references for, and worst still, deals mostly with fickle celebrities who claim to be vegan one day and not the next. It would be better to just mention that these people are vegan in the biographical articles themselves. Worse still, this article has been cited by a magazine, even though it has always contained numerous factual errors. I've tried to go through and weed out the people with unreliable sources, or add sources whenever possible. But for the actors, musicians, etc. who comprise the bulk of the list, the only sources are tabloidesque, untrustworthy websites. --N-k (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, specifically because each entry can be properly sourced/footnoted, which can't be done with categories. Having a distinct article is the more encyclopaedic approach. It is a daunting article to keep current and accurate, but apparently many editors are working to do just that. MichaelBluejay (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little note: Editors who comment in this discussion might want to look at the 'list of vegans' section of Talk:List of vegetarians, the 'list of vegetarians' section of Talk:List of vegans, as well as WP:Peer review/List of vegetarians/archive1. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn into category interesting topic, but such a list could be endless. Dew Kane (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - it wouldn't be endless without inclusion criteria. Besides, we have only 6,839,714 articles on Wikipedia, and only a small proportion of those are biographies of vegans, so really the list is not endless. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it needs some minor help with layout and organization, but the List of vegetarians article is serving as an excellent template. I think the argument that it will expand endlessly is rubbish, since veganism involves a finite number of people, especially as compared to others counted in Wiki list articles. One glance at the Lists of people on Wikipedia reveals countless broader lists – List of HIV-positive people, List of non-fiction writers, as well as all of the Lists of people by nationality are bound to be at the very least comparable, if not much larger, in scope and possibility for endless expansion as the vegan list. Colinclarksmith (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - sourcing track record seems solid and the list is well maintained considering unsourced and nn material tend to be purged in reasonable time, nothing "unwieldy" about it. We should be encouraging lists which demonstrate such strong supports WP:V, WP:N - definitely has featured list potential. Groupings and order are generally good, definitely not wiktionary:indiscriminate. Said groupings/ordering cannot be achieved as effectively under the wiki software's rather primitive category system, further justifying a list approach. Of course any list is "potentially endless" (WP:NOTPAPER, WP:SPLIT), but that is not a deletion criterion. In fact, there appears to be no valid deletion criterion claimed for this AfD. Dl2000 (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - vegetarianism and veganism are obviously notable topics. They are a defining characteristic of many people's lives since many make an active choice to be vegetarian or vegan based on religious or ethical beliefs. The List of vegetarians is pretty big (bytes-wise), so having a spinout list of vegans makes sense. The list is well sourced and the contributors seem dedicated. there's no evidence that it will get out of control. Non-notable additions can be simply removed as they are with every other well maintained list. It's not going to be "endless"; there are only going to be so many people with articles here that are vegans, and the number will surely be smaller than, say, the number of Americans, or actors.--BelovedFreak 15:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. One major objection to a category is that it is unsourceable. My counterpoint would be that the article itself should have a source that documents that the subject is indeed a Vegan - and that the presence of that source is a prerequesite for inclusion in the category. A category is superior in many ways because of that - in theory, you know that each person listed in the category is confirmed to meet the criteria for inclusion in that category (i.e. actually being a Vegan). Not sure where I fall on deletion, but felt the need to clarify. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With categories though you're basically at the mercy of how rigorously verifiability is enforced on each article - some articles are exemplary in that respect, some less so. I'm not even convinced categories are encylopaedic information - were they ever intended as anything more than a means of organizing information on Wikipedia? Betty Logan (talk) 19:47, 15 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_April_10&oldid=1142642849"