Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 13

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, but feel free to merge any significant information. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Bournemouth

ABC Bournemouth (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 can't find significant coverage for this cinema. Joe Chill (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find good WP:RSs, and notability not established -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 23:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 14 June 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)

(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)

• Comment It seems that under its earlier names, it does have some history and some coverage. Always best to consider name changes over the years. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not a listed building (i searched the official website and found 2 former cinemas in Bournemouth but not this one), and there are approximately 374,000 listed buildings in England. The last 3 of the find sources searches added by MichaelQSchmidt above are too general as they are names of entire chains; adding 'Bournemouth' to them finds no significant coverage in independent reliable sources i can spot. The reference added to the article is not a reliable source. Qwfp (talk) 07:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I wouldn't be surprised if this building meets notability from pre-internet sources. However, since we don't declare things notable based on what sources there might be out there, I suggest we Merge the basic information into Bournemouth#Recreation. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:34, 14 June 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) 02:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Parker-Walshe

Michael Parker-Walshe (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 rugby league footballer has never played first grade, and has only played representative football at a junior level. He therefore fails WP:ATH. Mkativerata (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Also fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Notability. WWGB (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Has not played first grade or international RL.

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) 02:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kellogg (Canadian political writer)

Paul Kellogg (Canadian political 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)

University instructor who has published a few articles - not notable. No sources. Be in Nepean (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Location (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google scholar [1] doesn't find enough citations to his works to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF #1, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —64.229.170.73 (talk) 16:48, 19 June 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) 02:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Records

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

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

Record label, who may have some notable clients, is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Has been un-sourced for nearly five years. Codf1977 (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, until notability is established. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The musicians are notable, but the record label isn't. Joe Chill (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources, notability not established. Maashatra11 (talk) 16:41, 18 June 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) 02:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPWA Netanya Havoc

IPWA Netanya Havoc (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)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 19:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this event. Joe Chill (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable indy event.--WillC 05:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability test so badly it's unreal. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable and nearly a speedy. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 02:20, 19 June 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. Courcelles (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdel Moniem Al Saleh

Abdel Moniem Al Saleh (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:N. Can't find a single secondary RS to base this article on. It's possible that I'm missing important Arabic sources. The six weeks of one single on a single radio station article claim (unsourced) appears to not meet WP:BAND. Joe Decker (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Does not seem to be a notable person, according to a Google Search test I did. Heymid (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 14 June 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) 02:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B.C. Kochmit

B.C. Kochmit (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. BLP with no reliable sources for over a year.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - can't find evidence of notability in the article. Wandering Courier (talk) 21:28, 13 June 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 Speedily Deleted per G3 (Non-admin closure) Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bean 3 (film)

Bean 3 (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)

Unreleased film per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, unreferenced, nothing about it online, probable WP:HOAX. Empty Buffer (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under CSD G3 as hoax. I can find no evidence that such a film is in production or proposed. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoax. No news articles that this alleged film is in production. Article promises a source "article" but does not provide it. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Cook.RussianReversal (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G3; so tagged. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:55, 13 June 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) 02:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmebo

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

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

unsourced article. Google searches show no indication of notability. Only 4 hits - none of which appear to back up this article. WP:reliable sources required. Possible hoax. Article creator disputed prod. noq (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —TFOWR 15:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —TFOWR 15:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmebo is not famous so google won't pages about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutoputo (talk • contribs) 15:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires articles to show WP:notability using WP:reliable sources. At the moment the article does not do this. It is just a story with no means of WP:verification. The sources do not have to be web based but I would think that anything that google has not heard of is unlikely to be able to show notability. By your own admission this is a story that is largely unknown even to Gujuratis. noq (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless sources can befound. I wasn't able to find any mention of the term in the context presented. Not that it is an absolute indication, but Google didn't give me anything to go on. Movementarian (Talk) 16:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as hoax. "Any proof about Jasmebo has never been found and so it is considered as a fictional mythological creature" Now where have I heard remarks like that before? I know. In hoax articles on Wikipedia when people can't be bothered to create fake refs. "Nowadays in the age of global warming children are told stories of three heroes J,M and B who try to change the perspective of people and encourage them to stop global warming." Oh sure. A mythological trinity against global warming. Hang on. Possibly not a hoax. Possibly spam for a forthcoming book. Still a candidate for deletion. Peridon (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@talk:Noq i said its a quite less famous story and that makes it reasonable to let it stay... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutoputo (talk • contribs) 16:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@talk:Noq i said its a quite less famous story and that makes it reasonable to let it stay...Cutoputo (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly why it is not reasonable to let it stay. Please be careful when editing not to remove the rest of this debate when adding a comment. noq (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article itself says not well known. Google hardly returns anything. Couldn't be Notable. Arjun^codename024 17:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No references, no proof and no hits on Google. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 12:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above.TheRingess (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (disclaimer: I declined a speedy deletion request; the more I think about it the more I regret that...) Pretty obvious hoax, and the admin who declined the speedy is an idiot. TFOWR 17:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Nonsense. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cutoputo (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)I'm sorry I was mistaken to consider Jasmebo as a part of a myth, it actually is a character of folk lores about it. I would also like to suggest that Gujarati in the special characters lacks perfection.[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. Both sides ahve made reasonable arguments, and participation is such that I don't think relisting now would lead to a consensus. Courcelles (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furkan Doğan

Furkan Doğan (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 not a notable topic per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:MEMORIAL. Marokwitz (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Certainly a notable event, but his role was minor per WP:ONEVENT Movementarian (Talk) 16:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remind that WP:ONEEVENT says "..On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles..", and this case, an American citizen killed by IDF is notable because of possibilty change in US - Israel relations. Sezerpal (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• His role was getting killed, a sad as that is. He was not a major player in the events. By your rationale, every person that died in the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks should have thier own page because it significantly changed relations between the United States and numerous other nations. Movementarian (Talk) 14:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Several of the 9/11 victims do have their own articles, though. In fact there is a category, Category:Victims of the September 11 attacks. Of course not every 9/11 victim has a page and Sezerpal is not saying that every one killed on the Marmara should have a page. Sanguinalis (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Significant amount of media coverage. PatGallacher (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per impact on US - Israeli relations, continuing news coverage. Pohick2 (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article Israel – United States relations should cover such information. And wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. --Kslotte (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: I'm going to hold off on making a recommendation for a moment. Not everyone in List of participants of the Gaza flotilla needs a separate article. Given that this person appears to have no notability outside of being shot and killed during the Gaza flotilla raid, could someone offer further information as to why this is not simply an unnecessary fork of that article? Location (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge and redirect. Classic example of WP:BIO1E, and no reason has been given as to why the information about this subject needs to stand outside of Gaza flotilla raid. Relevant information should be merged with the primary article or, as Kslotte has suggested, Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid or Israel – United States relations. The "keep" votes have cited "significant media coverage" which alone is not enough for an appropriate fork. Location (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What is Furkan Doğan's claim to fame? Being a notable, world renowned peace activist or for being killed by Israel? Chesdovi (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:American unarmed civilian citizens killed by IDF & Rachel Corrie --Pohick2 (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corries' death was subsequently used as propaganda to such an extent which made it viable to have a page about her. It is the murder here which is claimed as being notable. But is it notable enough for inclusion on wiki? Chesdovi (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • i see the "propaganda" beginning already, follow-on media reports name him, although his memoir is not published yet Pohick2 (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Provide what you are referring to and add it to the article. Nothing notable enough isn't found in the article at the moment. --Kslotte (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • [2] the video is widely circulating on the blogs: the IDF versus IHH war continues. Pohick2 (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Even 16 days after Corries death, I don't think that article was really warranted. Why was Corrie notable then? These articles which evolve over time, are thinly veiled memorial pages which have bo place here. Chesdovi (talk)
• Merge, delete and redirect Article should be deleted because it doesn't met WP:PEOPLE, per WP:ONEEVENT (Gaza flotilla raid) and WP:MEMORIAL (Martyrdom). Gaza flotilla raid article covers his death and autopsy. Relevant aftermath can be merged (if not found already) into Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid. Redirect to Gaza flotilla raid. --Kslotte (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Getting killed in a notable event does not make you notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & merge per WP:BIO1E & WP:MEMORIAL & WP:NOTNEWS (cf: Turkish Language Wikipedia) Takabeg (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant international media coverage IJA (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Significant international media coverage" is about the whole flotila incident, not Dogan in particular. Chesdovi (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Several of the editors who are proposing deletion seem to have overlooked the main point in favor of Doğan's notability, that he was the only American citizen killed in the raid. The geopolitical significance of Doğan's death has been noted by several reliable sources. For example, the Christian Science Monitor:

Though Dogan’s ongoing American ties appear to be limited, the death of a US citizen will make it harder for the Obama administration to side-step a diplomatic confrontation with Israel.[3]

The Dallas Morning News;

The diplomatic drama over Israel's assault widened when one of the dead was identified as 19-year-old Furkan Dogan, who had dual U.S.-Turkish citizenship.[4]

The New York Daily News::

The death of an American citizen in the botched Israeli commando raid put pressure on the Jewish state Thursday to ease its Gaza naval blockade. [5]

This is not a case of WP:MEMORIAL. I don't know Doğan or anyone in his family, and there is no indication that any involved editor here does. As for WP:ONEEVENT, that policy applies to people who play minor roles in significant events. Doğan's role was anything but minor. Kslotte has said that some of the information about Doğan should be in Gaza flotilla raid, and some in Israel – United States relations. This is telling: the fact that Doğan is pertinant to two different Wikipedia articles underlies his significance. Not just the circumstances of his death, but the actions which led to it, his background, and his motivation are all notable and worthy subject matter for an article. Sanguinalis (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do only America's dead count? The relations between Israel and each county whose citizens died will naturally be affected. Both USA and Turkey are allies of Israel. This page should be merged. Dogen is not notable in himself. His killing is. Chesdovi (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi said it well: "Dogen is not notable in himself. His killing is." And the killing is part of Gaza flotilla raid. He wasn't killed on "personal basis". --Kslotte (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vote 'Merge then. No need for separate article. Chesdovi (talk)

The question isn't whose death "counts" but who meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines. They all have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Sanguinalis (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep US media discovered execution video; [Dave Lindorff's article http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/95], Even this long discussion proves that is NOTABLE. --Sezerpal (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how reliable is that source? And the victum can't be identified in that video. --Kslotte (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will be clear after independent investigation (if Israel accepts) but [ autopsy reports http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-attack-autopsy-results ], eye withnes accounts about where victim killed gives higher possibilty. I have Turkish sources, mostly video testimonies, I will try to collect and translate. Sezerpal (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dogen is a non-notable subject in himself. Any relevant infomation should obvioulsy be merged to the main page. Dogan has not become a posthumously famous martyr, as the likes of Corrie. Chesdovi (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Significant international media coverage about this shooting incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.95.176.104 (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Significant". I don't think so. This item of news filled the usual space such a thing would do in the press. I am sure the ratio of this item to that of the rest of the news in the papers is not that significant at all. Wiki is not a newspaper, that belongs over at wikinews. Should we have a page about Conservative plans to introduce a one pint drink/drive limit as it made the front page headlines and will be in the news for a short while? Chesdovi (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge As the one who contested an earlier PROD to give the article and news sources time to settle, I can't say the article is currently in a state worth remaining separate. Its information should be rolled into the articles mentioned above. If Dogan becomes a propaganda figure like Corrie sometime in the future, then he may warrant his own article. But not until in-depth discussions of his background and life appear in reliable sources. Dragoneer (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The shooting video makes him as important as Rachel Corrie. (though it is still not clear it is him who was shot there in the video Kavas (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R Corrie is not important. Neither was her death. It was the cult that arose in the months and years after her death. It is not for nothing that M al-Durah page was renamed to Muhammad al-Durrah incident. Many young boys have unfortunatly been killed. It was the footage of this and the subsequent controversy that made it a unique "incident". al-Durrah's shooting without the video is not notable. Even if footage exists of events on the flotilla, it is the whole episode which carries notability, not the shooting of one participant. Chesdovi (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:MEMORIAL. --Pessimist2006 (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All persons killed in the Flotilla Raid meet the standard set out in WP:BIO1E for inclusion, because the psychology and characters of the victims is relevant for historians who are trying to understand what happened on the boat, and why those people were shot. The fact that one of these victims had NO OTHER notable events in his life (including NO extremist affiliations, NO terrorist activities ...) is precisely the sort of thing that is relevant to this task, and the place to convey this information is in a stand-alone article on that person. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 01:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to "understand" why they were shot from the main article. They do not deserve their own page. Do we have a page on each of the 9/11 victims? They have not become iconic in any way. Two of them may retain their pages because wikipedia stupidly seems to allow lists for any person associated with sport or politics. Chesdovi (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What do you think about Solomos Solomou regarding single event discussions?Kavas (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment you insouciant sophist, showing the WP:BIO1E to be WP:idontlikeit Pohick2 (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of Wikipedia articles about people famous for only one event. A common misconception is that WP:ONEEVENT prohibits all such articles. It does not. The ONEEVENT policy applies only to articles about people who play very minor, peripheral roles in major events. Sanguinalis (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Because the Gaza flotilla attack has taken on huge notoriety and because Furkan is the only U.S citizen killed during it, his death takes on great significance. (richards1052)--Richard Silverstein (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How patriotic from a US citizen. Only yankees count here? Do we have a page on the notorious Asif Muhammad Hanif or Omar Khan Sharif? No. They are covered in the proper place, Mike's Place suicide bombing. His death has not become iconic. Why does he deserve a page? Chesdovi (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi, nobody is saying that Doğan is the only person killed on the Marmara who should have an article. For example, İbrahim Bilgen, a prominent Turkish politician, clearly merits an article. They all have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In the case of Doğan, it is a fact that his American citizenship has drawn significant media attention, whether any of us like that or not. Sanguinalis (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bilgen did something with his life (or had a chance to). What did Dogen achieve? Being shot and living in USA for 2 years? Sure, the media caught onto this dual-citizen fact, but this does not mean he warrants his own page. All the deaths got significant media coverage. It should be merged. Media coverage does not dictate what is included on wiki. Compare: Bloody Sunday (1972) Chesdovi (talk) 16:14, 21 June 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. Courcelles (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walton Well Road

Walton Well Road (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 street that's a couple of hundred yards long, with (as far as I can see) no remarkable structures in it or other features that might make it notable. The references included in the article egregiously fail to meet the WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources, and I'm not finding anything better. Deor (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — I have added more references for notability (including books, probably on on the web) and believe that this road meets general notability guidelines. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google news and Google book search shows ample results. In the summaries of the Google book search returns, they do speak of the road and its railway. Dream Focus 18:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A road can be ten yards long and still pass WP:GNG as this one does. --Oakshade (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If someone can name at least two specific sources with substantial coverage of the road itself, I'll withdraw the nomination. The Encyclopedia of Oxford may be one (it at least seems to have an entry on the topic, though it's not available online), but I'm not seeing any others. Deor (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no requirement that more than one reliable source gives significant coverage ("expected" is not "required"). It all depends on the depth of the coverage of the source and the Jericho Echo piece is very in-depth. This in combination of the lesser coverage from multiple sources does indicate further notability. Coverage not being available online does not disqualify it from being actual coverage. Print sources are allowed.--Oakshade (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note — The Peter Snow reference is substantial and the Tanis Hinchcliffe references are numerous. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The reference list includes some which are not about Walton Well Road but rather something near it, and some which are not reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a directory of every short road in the world. Edison (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not exactly sure what you're speaking of. This source seems to be all about the road.--Oakshade (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That source is about Walton Street, which is different from Walton Well Road. Deor (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gotcha. I still think there's enough coverage to warrant an article. It's not overwhelming though.--Oakshade (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources provided seem quite adequate for our purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note — There is no evidence that WP:BEFORE bullet point 10 was followed for this new article. ("If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.") — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Geographic information is encyclopedic. To me, Hope (2003) demonstrates that this sreet is historically tied to the geography of the region, providing sufficient notability. (No one questions rivers or mountains for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Since WP is not a paper encyclopedia, we have ample room for articles like this.) I do think that the lead should be expanded to identify these other geographic features and and then Walton Well (Oxford) as well as Walton Ford (Oxford) should redirect to this article. Human history is closely tied to geography; if it weren't for the ford we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Hope (2003) verifies this connection. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This article doesn't appear to assert notability to me. I just see notable topics associated with the location. Could someone clarify for me why this is notable for its own sake? - BalthCat (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing that out won't affect the outcome of the AfD at this point, but I'm glad someone else noticed. Deor (talk) 15:41, 21 June 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 to delete. I personally found the "keep" arguments more persuasive, but viewed objectively, both sides make arguments that have not been refuted. NAC by—S Marshall T/C 19:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

List of former atheists and agnostics

List of former atheists and agnostics (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:SOAP The list has a definitional problem in that if we take the weak atheist definition then everyone is born an atheist and therefore every believer is technically a former atheist. However, the purpose of the list is to highlight those particular believers who are notable and make a point of declaring themselves to have been former atheists. But believers almost always do this solely for the purpose of recruitment or propaganda. Qed (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any notable person of faith who wanted to put themselves on the list could simply recount the moment that they first believed in god, then proclaim that they were atheist until that point. As such the list merely is a record of those believers who decided to do that and does not in any way reflect anything of significance regarding their faith or atheism. Qed (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify/correct myself: when I say "But believers almost always do this solely for the purpose of recruitment or propaganda", what I mean is that the use of a public forum to showcase "conversions from atheism" is usually an apologist tactic. I am not intending on impugning believers who do not engage in this sort of propaganda. Qed (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - your reasoning is ingenious, but I think this list should be deleted simply because it will become impractically large, as the inclusion criteria are way too wide. If we're going to have a list on "former atheists", it really needs to be about individuals whose conversion came later in life and was prominent. Also, the range of human belief systems are too wide- I hope it will not be too harsh to draw the analogy:
• List of former deists
• List of former pantheists
• List of former former atheists
• List of former anti-theists

I'm probably going to disagree with you about whether "believers almost always do this solely for the purpose of recruitment or propaganda", and I'd suggest you might want to read WP:POINT, but I'm still in favour of getting rid of this list. Claritas § 16:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with the WP:POINT reference. I do genuinely think this page should be deleted, and because its essentially a religious recruitment tool (which falls under propaganda). The existence of the list will encourage people who support this propaganda to get themselves onto the list. These are standard apologetics tactics. I thought Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a tool for activist causes. Lists on Wikipedia should observations of facts as they are, not to encourage people to be part of the "facts".

For me to be failing on WP:POINT, I supposed I would have to think the WP:SOAP rule itself is flawed and by deleting this page I would be showing just how flawed the rule is -- except that's not in any way what I am trying to do here. The rule is perfectly sound, its the page itself which is unsound. Qed (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We need to be careful when considering whether to delete any article that is well-sourced (a rare treat on Wikipedia), and the topic of a person renouncing one set of beliefs in favor of another is encyclopedic. Arguably, there have been more notable atheists who had, in their younger years, believed very sincerely in a deity, but I would look at such a list as informational, rather than assuming it to be a promotion of atheism. The hyperbole of "this could be endless" is a frequent argument, but one that almost never works if it's clear that the scope is limited to notable persons whose inclusion can be justified with a source. "Believers almost always do this solely for the purpose of recruitment or propaganda"? Are you serious? What else do "we" do? Generalizations about any group-- Christians, atheists, Muslims, Republicans, NRA members, Sierra Club members, etc. -- are not reasons to delete an article. Mandsford 19:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course its well sourced -- people of faith who say they were former atheists, are trying to be well sourced (by being quoted or being very vocal about it). That's the whole point of what they are doing -- that's how propaganda works. I would imagine that most WP:SOAP complaints are about things that are "well sourced". So I don't see the merit of this argument.

The list is not analogous to atheists who were formerly theist because its possible to avoid a theistic phase altogether, while it is impossible (by the weak atheist definition) to avoid an atheist phase. Notable atheists cannot just decide to put themselves on that list (at least not honestly). Furthermore, it is possible to dig up records on people externally as to having gone to seminary or something like that to independently confirm a de-conversion. So that list is actually measuring something that intrinsic to the historical nature of their faith. Whereas any notable theist can put themselves onto this page's list as soon as they wish do so just as others are not on the list only because they decide not to say anything about it.

Perhaps I was not being clear when I said "believers do this for propaganda purposes". I meant that "apologists do this for propaganda purposes" (but stating it that way is nearly tautological). I also think the practice is restricted almost entirely to apologist purposes, which I probably should have written instead. Obviously, I don't mean to claim all believers do this, but rather that those that do are doing so for apologist propaganda reasons. Qed (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I suppose that there are people who make false claims about what their former beliefs had been, for whatever reason, but I think that most are sincere when they say, "Well, I used to believe..." You'll have to educate me about what you mean by theistic and atheistic phrases, but people are genuinely interested in the philosophies of notable persons, and book authors and reporters bring up these questions because a change in beliefs is a turning point in a person's life. Madalyn Murray O'Hair, not surprisingly, was asked about having been raised as a Presbyterian because people were interested in her life. While I suppose that one could look at her observations as propaganda [6], I don't have any reason to doubt her. We have an entire Category:Lists of religious converts because (a) readers are curious (b) they want to find out if what they have "heard" is true and (c) they want to be able to prove it, preferably by showing where it was written in a book. It's not just religion; people were interested in why Arlen Specter went from being a "former Republican" to being a Democrat. Mandsford 20:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you are missing a key point. People have to be given religion -- they can't be born with it (there's no Christian gene). So for the period of time when you have not yet been given religion, you have no religion and no beliefs which makes you an atheist (by the weak definition.) So everyone is a "former atheist" as a matter of definition, its just a question of whether or not they are currently believers. So its not a list of anything, except people who are believers for which you can find certain logically superfluous documentation. Pointing out the M.M.O'H as an interesting case supports the list of atheists who were former believers (because some definitively were not and some were). So that doesn't support your case, it just supports the case for the other page. Similarly, the Arlen Specter case is different because people are born neither democrat nor republican. You don't get to escape being born an atheist.

Look, the asymmetry comes from the fact that atheism is not a religion. Its just the default stance. And its not a philosophy (philosophical forms of atheism are essentially akin to the strong or explicit form of atheism, which is the minority form, but this list doesn't mention strong or explicit atheism.) That's why the lists are not analogous. Qed (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps someone will agree with you. Mandsford 22:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep i see the conversion of someone from a position of atheism or agnosticism to a religion as inherently notable. As long as this list is limited to people who were notably atheistic during the span of their notability, and then made a public statement of conversion, i see no problem. i would exclude anyone who said that in their past, before they were notable, they were atheistic, and then converted after their notability (even if they were atheistic into their adulthood but before their notability). unless, they were a religious leader who became notable at the moment of their conversion. I think what ive written eliminates the problem of everyone being areligious at birth.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't get that. Everyone who becomes religion converts from atheism. You are saying that some 82% of the US are inherently notable? The act of that conversion alone makes someone notable? That makes no sense. If you want to make a list of notable atheists who converted to religion, then I think you have to explicitly put that in the title of the list, because that's a very different thing from from a person who converts then becomes notable, then decided to be vocal about the (redundant) fact that they used to be an atheist. And that's not made clear by the title of the article, or the introduction to the article. Qed (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I suppose some wise guy could try to add all known notable theists to this list based on the supposition that all are born atheists, but that's a pretty contentious (POV) claim, and not one that can be supported well with reliable sources. We should evaluate the list based on what it is now, not on how it could theoretically go wrong in the future. In that same vein, we shouldn't delete a list just because we imagine it might become unmanageably long in the future. At present, the list is quite manageable, and insistence on thorough sourcing by its editors has assured that, quite unlike several lists that have justifiably been deleted. As for the claim that the list has some sort of apologetic agenda--I don't see that at all, and I'm one contributor to the list who happens to be an atheist. Again, insistence on thorough sourcing has helped nullify any potential POV slant that any one editor might try to insert. Nick Graves (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that we are all born without belief is POV? Is saying we are all born without language or pubic hair or adult teeth POV as well? The list as a whole is not immediately easy to judge since I have never heard of most of the people on it. The few that are on it that I know only express their former atheism for the very specific purpose of apologetic recruitment (Francis Collins, Kirk Cameron, C.S. Lewis, Alister McGrath, are/were all active apologists). Because that's the only real purpose this list serves.

There is also a question of how do you reliably collect names for this list? If a believer decides not to talk about or reveal their former atheism, or in fact lies and says they never were then they escape this list even though they shouldn't. So how do you even make this list not inherently inaccurate? Qed (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really did not intend to post here, but there are Jewish and Hindu sections. I have supported those expanding so long as any new names therein are sourced. Judaism and Hinduism, as a rule, do not evangelize. That you've never heard of the names therein does not really make all of them obscure. Mary Doria Russell has one numerous awards including the Arthur C. Clarke Award and the James Tiptree, Jr. Award. Annie Besant was one of the leading Theosophist, which is a historically notable group. This isn't an argument one way or another. I could see arguing this is too broad as we don't have ones specific to other metaphysical position. No List of former deists, List of former pantheists, and so forth. Although as I created it I obviously thought it could be historically/culturally useful without necessarily being evangelistic. (I actually took C. S. Lewis off at one point, when it was still just "former atheist", as I'm unconvinced he was ever actually an atheist. I think he was probably more like an irreligious agnostic, but that would fit him in the current version.) --T. Anthony (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Nick Graves. The nominator's definitional problem seems to be a problem mostly for himself. 'Everyone is a "former atheist" as a matter of definition' is highly debatable, and clearly isn't the definition used by this list. The argument that 'Any notable person of faith who wanted to put themselves on the list could' is similarly a straw man; I somehow doubt there are a substantial number of notable people of faith willing to go to any effort to get added to yet another list in Wikipedia. --GRuban (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not debatable at all. How could someone be born believing in religion? Its not possible, and certainly I have never heard of any record of such a thing. The default position on any stance is the neutral one, which in this case is a lack of belief. But that's the definition of atheism. If you look through the discussion page for that page, you will very clearly see I am not the only one with this "problem".

Wow. You're actually debating whether or not it's debatable? Doesn't that contradiction bother you? Just a tad? :-)

Words have multiple meanings, and our article atheism starts with three of them. the rejection of belief in the existence of deities; the position that there are no deities; the absence of belief that any deities exist. You seem to be grabbing the third one, when it's pretty clear that is not the definition most, or likely any, of the people on that list would be using when saying "I used to be an atheist". I'm quite sure that almost all of the people on that list mean that they thought about it, and consciously rejected the existence of any deities, and if any simply mean "I was born knowing nothing, just like everybody else", would support that person's removal. --GRuban (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You also misunderstand my point about people adding themselves to the list. I am not claiming that there will be many or a substantial number people who do it. My claim is that people will do it primarily for propagandistic purposes; i.e., they are self selecting. Further they will use the existence of this page itself as a motivating factor to put themselves on the list. Qed (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah. Religion is self selecting - you want to join a certain religion, you make the decision, and go through a more or less difficult process, and there you are. In fct, most of our lists of people are at least partly self selecting, from List of Megadeth band members to List of lieutenant governors of Wisconsin - no one forces someone on to the List of Los Angeles Lakers head coaches, most or all of the members went to great lengths to get there, and I suspect most are darn proud of it, write books about it, give speeches about it, and put it on their resumes to get similar or even better jobs (i.e., propagandistic purposes). So what? "self selecting" is not a disqualifier. --GRuban (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nomination based on two unverifiable theories. This is not the place to discuss whether we are born with beliefs, or why people disclose their current and former beliefs. Should this list ever get out of hand due to size, it can easily be converted into a list of lists of converts. --Pgallert (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think I've figured out that the nominator defines an atheist as a person who "does not believe in God", rather than a person who "believes that there is no God" (more specifically, no supreme being or beings by whatever name), and there is a difference between the two. I'm willing to look at whatever dictionary definition the nominator relies upon, although a question of semantics is a reason for editing, rather than deleting an article. As far as what I'd point to, here would be three examples: "one who believes that there is no deity" [7] is; other online definitions are "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings" [8] or "someone who denies the existence of god" [9]. There is a difference between having a belief that something does not exist, and never having formed a belief at all. While we could argue all day on this, I suppose, I've yet to see a policy based reason to delete this article. Mandsford 12:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Qed's error is here: "The default position on any stance is the neutral one, which in this case is a lack of belief. But that's the definition of atheism." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, states the definition of atheist as: "one who believes that there is no deity." That is the common understood definition. In the interest of effective communication, which is necessary for consensus building, that is the definition of the word that should be understood for the title of the article under discussion. This article should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a directory. The reason people are notable is not because they are Christian, Buddhist, Moslem, Jewish, Atheist or Agnostic. People are notable because they have accomplished something in sports, they have invented something very useful, they have been born into a royal family, or some other notable thing. It is possible to record a notable person's belief in an article, but not necessary and I would not record the fact if the subject of the article objected. The religious belief and instruction the Catholics' Pope had as a child would be pertinent to the article on Pope Benedict XVI, but the best indication of childhood beliefs is that the five year old Joseph Ratzinger said that he wanted to be a cardinal. The religious or anti-religious beliefs of authors, musicians, movie and television workers, teachers, politicians, scientists, and athletes do not make them notable. I urge that this list be deleted and then someone should nominate for deletion the [[List of nontheists (activists and educators)]], [[List of nontheists (authors)]], [[List of nontheists (film, radio, television and theater)]], [[List of nontheists (music)]], List of nontheists (philosophy)]], [[List of nontheists (politics and law)]], [[List of nontheists (science and technology)]], and [[List of nontheists (miscellaneous)]]. If I learn that they have been nominated, I will certainly call for their deletion. --Fartherred (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do you also support deleting all of the lists here? Famous people are notable in part because of their expressed religious beliefs simply because many people take an interest in such information. That's why so many sources report on such matters, even if most people listed on these lists are notable primarily for something other than their beliefs. Whether lists such as these ought to exist on Wikipedia hinges not on whether individuals listed are primarily notable for their religious identity, but on whether famous adherents of certain religions are notable as a class of people. When researching a religion, it is common to inquire into the matter of famous adherents, and so these lists serve as a useful complement to the articles on Judaism, Mormonism, atheism, etc. Regardless, the argument you put forward is support for tightening of inclusion criteria (so that only those whose notability depends on their current or former religious beliefs are listed), and not a valid criterion for deletion of the entire list. Nick Graves (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have had time to read Nick Graves' comment, I write that these lists should do no harm for people who are dead and for people whose fame is inseparable from their publicly expressed views, such as Richard Dawkins and the Pope. I would hope living persons whose beliefs are unrelated to their to their fame would be removed from these lists. --Fartherred (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay to limiting it to the dead, I'm just not sure I know of a way to enforce that or a precedent to justify it. I'd also be okay with limiting to those who are partly/largely notable for being an ex-atheist or ex-agnostic, but I have a feeling if I did so it would be more irritating to the nominator. As a general rule in the past I've defended "list of XYZ religion members" but been more open to deleting "List of former members of XYZ-religion" as the latter seems to be defining people by what they're not anymore. Still I did create this one so I guess my traditional view was they should either all stay or all go. Although possibly I can see how "atheists or agnostics" is a bit broader or different, in a way, than the extent "former blank" lists.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. --Fartherred (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: Listing people according to religious belief, anti-religious belief or the lack of such beliefs allows for the discrimination between people of one sort of belief and another in situations in which such discrimination is improper. One should not hear in an employment interview the question of whether or not one attends Sunday worship services unless the potential employment is as a Sunday school teacher. If the information is listed on Wikipedia, it would be easy to find without asking improper questions. --Fartherred (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mandsford. As long as the criteria are limited to 1) Notable people, who 2) were RS'ed as atheists or agnostic at one point, and 3) have had an RS'ed conversion to a different belief system, where 4) no subsequent RS has described them leaving the newfound faith, I don't see a problem. With all that RS'ing, each list entry should easily meet the GNG! Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can see no reason to delete this article. As mentioned, it's good to see a sourced list on wikipedia. However, the nominator raises good points that can perhaps improve the direction of the article- in particular, making sure that the person's previous atheist status is verified. --George100 (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Jclemens. Edward321 (talk) 14:05, 15 June 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 whatsoever. Certain comments here seem to have been made in the mistaken belief that individual items on a list must be notable. I was personally most persuaded by Mark Kupper's short but well-reasoned thought, but viewed objectively, there is no consensus on what to do with this list. NAC by—S Marshall T/C 07:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

List of Masonic buildings

List of Masonic buildings (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 is overly duplicative with Masonic Temple, Masonic Temple (disambiguation), Category:Masonic buildings and several other pages that contain essentially the exact same information. No citations are given to substantiate inclusion. There is no clear criteria for inclusion. No citations are given to substantiate notability of the topic. List largely consists of red-links (and has since the last large expansion in 2008). Blueboar (talk)

• Additional Comments and Explanation - Because most of the buildings listed here are on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), there is some grounds for saying that they are individually notable... however that does not answer the question of whether they are notable as a grouping. I would contend that few of these buildings are notable for being "Masonic". This is analogous to creating a list of "Americans with blue eyes"... the people listed may be notable for other reasons, but they are not notable for having blue eyes. Notability must be established within the context of the article topic. This problem is compounded by the fact that the criteria for inclusion is unclear and overly broad. There is no clear definition of what a "Masonic building" actually is (attempts to answer that question have been made on the talk page, with no consensus reached). Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is duplicative to discussion on mergers/moves already ongoing at Requested Move discussion at Talk:Masonic temple (disambiguation)#Requested move 2, where community input is already asked for, about two competing comprehensive proposals. This AFD should be closed administratively IMO.

Blueboar's actions to abruptly make moves and initiate duplicative proposals has been very confusing in a series of related articles and disambiguation pages. Hmm, to add to that confusion now i see that Blueboar, not waiting for a consensus, has declared the Requested move 2 discussion over by his or someone else implementing one move under discussion. Since there was not consensus, I don't believe that ends the discussion. I object to opening new discussion elsewhere for much of the same stuff to be repeated. I reiterate this AFD should simply be closed as premature / duplicative. --doncram (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Doncram - As to my actions... At lest one of the page moves that you now complain about was performed by an admin (admittedly at my prompting) in direct response to a page move request that you made (see: Talk:Masonic Temple (disambiguation)#Requested move 2), and I had nothing to do with the other.

As to whether this AfD nomination is premature... This article has been prodded twice, so this is nothing new. The two of us have been arguing about the very issues I raise here for more than a month, with no movement towards resolution or consensus. The underlying issue of whether to keep or delete this list article must be settled before we can move forward on on resolving our issues with other articles (and that answer will help to determine how we do so). Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting new editors to consider this AFD proposal, separate from the naming / merging / split / other proposals all under discussion at the central discussion, would not be helpful. It is best to return to the central discussion, which was created to combine multiple separate discussions previously, rather than splitting the discussion yet again. I'll comment about this AFD proposal there, now. Please discuss there. --doncram (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is always an option to be considered at AfD. And you are free to propose a merger as an alternative to deletion. In this case, I don't believe merging is a viable option, because it simply moves the problems I outline above to a different page without resolving them. Without a clear inclusion criteria for what a "Masonic building" is, and without a clear indication of what makes a "Masonic building" notable, it does not really matter where we put the list. The problem is with the list itself... not the location where we find it. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are already merger proposals under discussion, in a central discussion. I explain there why i feel your proposal here is a false proposal, too. Please discuss in the central discussion. --doncram (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there has been an attempt at centralized discussion... in which I have repeatedly expressed the opinion that this list article should be deleted (giving the same reasons as I express here) while you have repeatedly expressed your opinion that it should be kept (without really addressing why) ... we are at a deadlock at that discussion. Which of the various merger proposals is adopted depends on whether this list article is deleted or not. It is time to end the deadlock and see what the greater community thinks. You don't have to like the fact that I have nominated this for deletion, but now that I have, please deal with it and express your reasons why you think this list article should be kept. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you know i already stated those reasons in the centralized discussion, including why an AFD would fail and also why i think this is a false proposal. Please read what is written there, and answer clarifying questions there if you have any. It does not help get consensus in the centralized discussion -- already discussing this very question -- to split the discussion. Are you forum-shopping (is that wp:forumshop?), trying to railroad through a different decision, going around a consensus process already underway somewhere else? --doncram (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As others joined the AFD below, i am forced to concede the AFD is happening. I certainly oppose, and state that below. --doncram (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I agree that this is already covered in the two other articles cited by the nominator, and I can't figure out why we need three such lists. The entire Masonic Temple (disambiguation) page seems to have been created out of a serious misunderstanding of what a disambiguation page is supposed to be. It's as if I wandered into town and asked, "Say, where's the Masonic temple?" and the reply was, "Oh, do you mean the one in Fairbanks, or the one in El Dorado, or the one in Pine Bluff, or the one in Kingman, or...". I can see where this would be a legitimate spinoff of the article Masonic Temple, however. As for the category, keep that one, some people prefer to look for their information by way of categories and should have the right to do so WP:CLN. I'm sure that someone will say, "We don't need a list, we have a category", which to me is like saying, "You don't need to have a Masonic Temple, you can meet at the community center". Mandsford 19:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Masons don't need a Masonic Temple... and often do meet at the community center.

More likely the Anytown Community Center used to be the Masonic Temple, until the local lodge closed and the Masons sold it to the town. However it is listed in the National Registry of Historic Places under the name "Masonic Temple"... which means it is listed at Masonic Temple (disambiguation) and at List of Masonic buildings as a red linked "potential" article... only it is unlikely that anyone will ever actually write that article because the building is currently named the "Anytown Community Center".

Or maybe the community center is a notable example of beaux arts architecture built in 1910 and has a Wikipedia article because of that... but because the Masons happen to have purchased the building in 1998 and currently meet there someone says it qualifies to be listed at List of Masonic buildings.

See how complicated this gets without clear definitions of what makes a building a "Masonic building", and what makes a particular "Masonic building" notable? Blueboar (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mandsford for your reasonable !vote despite your misgivings about the dab page you mention. FYI, the dab page is unusual for including many red-link items but it fully meets Wikipedia guideline/policy at wp:MOSDAB, with a supporting bluelink establishing notability for every entry that is a primary red-link. No one asserts that every Masonic meetingplace is notable. The dab page covers ones known to be wikipedia-notable by their being NRHP-listed or otherwise. --doncram (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have tried to follow the convoluted and contentious discussion about disambiguation pages for Masonic buildings, but I have not weighed in there because I didn't have a strong opinion. Looking once again at this list, Category:Masonic buildings, and the various disambiguation pages, I am overwhelmed by the impression that this list article is an indiscriminate and impossible-to-maintain list of a tiny fraction of the world's masonic buildings -- a nonnotable collection that has no inherent encyclopedic value. There might be some merit in retaining pages like Masonic Temple (disambiguation) and Scottish Rite Cathedral that are currently configured as disambiguation pages, but it seems to me that they should be repurposed as set-index articles -- the similarity of name is not a matter of needing disambiguation so much as the fact that there are a lot of "Masonic Temples" in the world, some of which have articles. This topic is, however, an appropriate one for a category -- and the necessary category exists. --Orlady (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the 4 Virginia ones now that i have developed that section a bit (with sources): one "Lodge", one "Temple", one "Hall", one "Memorial"? All 4 seem highly significant. There are presumably many other Masonic meetingplaces in Virginia but none that are non-notable have been added. There seems to be no problem with indiscriminate additions and there should be no problem maintaining this, as far as i can see. The appropriateness of having overlap between complementary list-article and category has been pointed out by others elsewhere now, and is covered in wp:PURPLIST and wp:CLN. --doncram (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that individual elements of a list are notable does not make the list notable. As WP:NOTDIR states, Wikipedia does not publish "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" and lists should not be created based on "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" (such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y"). Regarding cross-categories, that policy states: "Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." I have not yet seen any sources that indicate that being a building that is notable for some reason or other AND being somehow associated with Freemasonry represents a notable (or culturally significant) intersection. --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the buildings were built by the freemasons. They would not exist were it not for the freemasons. Categorizing a group of buildings by the organization which is directly responsible for their existence is not a "loose association" nor is it a "non-encyclopedic cross categorization". Under your logic, List of churches in London would also be a loose association or a non-encyclopedic cross categorization. After all, it's just a list article about notable buildings which were built by a particular organization. SnottyWong talk 17:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you are saying that the scope of this list is "buildings built by Freemasons"? That's not an inclusion criterion that I've ever seen documented in the article, but documenting it here would be a first step towards adding it to the article.

I think you are also saying that being built by Freemasons is a notable association for a building because the building would not exist if it weren't for Freemasonry. I'm afraid you've lost me there -- not only does that not impress me as a culturally significant association that merits creation of a list (are you also going to propose a list of buildings built using bank-financed loans? -- those are buildings that would not exist if not for banks), but I'm having trouble imagining where a person would look for substantial published content to show that this association meets the WP:GNG.

PS: Does this new inclusion criterion of yours still exclude buildings built by Shriners, Scottish Rite, and other Masonic groups that do not explicitly include the word "Mason" in the names of their buildings? --Orlady (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review of the list entries indicates that the existing entries were NOT all built by Freemasons. I checked only the first 8 blue-linked entries on the list, and found 3 that weren't built by Masons and one whose article does not describe the building's Masonic connection. The ones not built by Masons include the first entry on the list (State House, Bermuda), The Cloisters (Letchworth) and Masonic Temple (Kingman, Arizona). As for the one whose Masonic connection is unclear, I think it's likely that Masonic Temple (Toronto) was built by Freemasons, but the article about it doesn't say anything about its Masonic connection. Half the buildings I looked at were built by Freemasons, though. --Orlady (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Orlady: What about List of animals with fraudulent diplomas, to which i notice mention at your talk-page, and then see you have contributed to over some time (before and since it was renamed in October 2009). Orlady, i think your contributions there appear good, and i certainly won't initiate an AFD about it. It is clearly amusing, well-written, useful in a weird way (though not as a navigational aid, unlike this list of masonic buildings), and well-supported in each of its individual items. And it appears to be exactly the kind of collection of individual instances, individually supported that your comments suggest you would strongly oppose. I don't want to comment further about this as it is a tangent, but could you provide a comment briefly why you support one and not the other? Maybe i am just wrong that there is not good documentation of that list topic, as a topic, already published. --doncram (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you brought it up, that "fraudulent diplomas" list-article was the subject of an AfD that we might as well look at now: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cats with fraudulent diplomas. That AfD resulted in a snowball "keep" (something that is not real likely to happen with the present AfD). (My own "Keep" comment in that AfD focused on the fact that a frivolous-sounding renaming of the article, and not its content, was what had led to its AfD nomination.) An important reason for the "keep" is that the phenomenon of cats and dogs receiving fraudulent diplomas is a culturally significant phenomenon -- there are several incidents of people applying to suspected diploma mills on behalf of their pets in order to expose the fraudulent nature of the institution. Most of these cases were widely reported in news media, and in at least one case, the fraudulent diploma helped lead to a successful prosecution of the institution. Furthermore, note that these cats and dogs do not have their own separate articles; they are covered only in this list (and sometimes also in articles about the institutions they helped to expose). List of animals with fraudulent diplomas is a list "created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles", as discussed in the guideline Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists.

In contrast, many of the buildings on the Masonic buildings have their own articles, which are not being proposed for deletion. The issue is whether or not there is something culturally significant about the intersection of "building" and "Masonic" that needs to be documented in a list, in addition to stand-along articles about individual buildings. I have not seen evidence that there is any particular cultural significance to that intersection. --Orlady (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Masonic Temple with an immediate redirect. This allows the current page content to be mined over time for inclusion in the Masonic Temple article. I have started Talk:Masonic Temple#Notable Masonic Temples to help further refine the inclusion criteria. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I know you are aware that there are numerous Masonic buildings that are not called "Masonic Temple", but many of these pages have focused mostly on similarity of name. Have you thought about how to cover the various "Masonic halls", "Scottish Rite temples", and other names that are fundamentally equivalent to the entities called "Masonic temple," but happen to have a different name? --Orlady (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Orlady's points, The problem I see with Marc's merger proposal is that we would still have the problem of defining what makes a particular Masonic Temple note worthy (and I use the term deliberately to distinguish from WP:Notable) enough to be mentioned? Is the criteria that the building is an example of a particular type or style of Masonic Temple? Is it because it has historic value to the fraternity (being, for example, the oldest Masonic meeting place in a particular state)? Is it because of its size and impressiveness? In other words... what makes a Masonic Building/Temple/Hall/Center/whatever note worthy (or for that matter, WP:notable) within the context of the article? Blueboar (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, I had not paid attention to the names of the buildings. Sometimes the buildings are called temples, halls, centers, etc. The Scottish Rite temples are different and I believe are covered at Scottish Rite Cathedral. Blueboar, I believe I answered your concerns at Talk:Masonic Temple#Notable Masonic Temples. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Scottish Rite is not a Masonic group? Or that the buildings it built and/or uses are not Masonic buildings? (There seems to be no end to the mysteries surrounding Freemasonry...) --Orlady (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The indications (both here and in the article) that the list includes buildings used by some Masonic orders but not others only supports my general impression that the organizing principle for the list (i.e., being a building and being somehow associated with Freemasonry, or some elements of Freemasonry) is not notable. --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The complaints of the nomination seem easy to remedy by ordinary editing and so, per our editing policy, are insufficient to warrant deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not a fan of list articles, categorising and indexing of articles is more usefully carried out using categories and navigation templates. There is no clear inclusion policy and the number of red links suggests that few of the buildings listed are inherently notable in their own right. ALR (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, don't be a fan of list-articles, but as has been explained, and is covered in wp:PURPLIST and wp:CLN, list-articles are complementary to other navigation approaches. I fixed some of the red-links by creating articles, and it turns out they are eminently notable. How is the List of Masonic buildings#section on Virginia, as now developed, for example? The presence of other red-links is an indication only that the article is not complete. I believe the red-links are all NRHP-listed places like 3 of the 4 in Virginia. --doncram (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to try to browbeat me into agreeing with you is increasingly tedious. I don't believe that you've made a case for notability of either the individual buildings or the list article itself, but I recognise that your focus is on creating list articles that reflect the content of this register of places. You've been invited to demonstrate the the topic and the individual buildings are notable, and you have thus far continued to bang on about them being notable because they're notable. I do not accept your assertion, however the outcome of this will be the will of the majority. Learn to live with that.

ALR (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that by my direct reply to your !vote here, and otherwise, that i seem to you to be browbeating. I do apologize. About the case for notability of individual buildings, at least, i thought i was addressing that by what i developed in the 3 Virginia articles that i created and linked in, and called your attention to. Again, sorry for the appearance of too-direct commenting back. --doncram (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just to be clear what is my view: the list-article should be kept. It is easy to document with reliable references that each of many items in the list have significant Masonic association. As Colonel Warden notes, the deletion nominator's complaints can easily be addressed by normal editing processes. The fact of overlap between the list and a category is completely normal for list articles and corresponding categories; they're different tho, which the deletion nominator has refused to understand. The fact of overlap between disambiguation pages and a list article is also unremarkable; dab pages are different too and cannot hold pictures and descriptions and other development. The AFD, given extensive discussion elsewhere, seems unhelpful. Note, at WikiProject Freemasonry, there's a different editor stirring along with interest to develop the list-article. --doncram (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum to nomination remarks - this is spiraling out of control... now an editor has created yet another duplicative version of the list... at List of Masonic Temples. We now have no less than five iterations of essentially the same list. None of which establish what makes the underlying topic notable in the first place... although that is not required for two of them (the dab page and the category). Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions: Time to address the elephant in the room. The underlying issue here is simple... is the concept of a "Masonic building" notable? (or to put it another way, is the topic notable?) I think we are all assuming it is, but the article currently does not establish any notability through reference to reliable sources. Which leads to a second question... are their reliable sources that discuss the topic of Masonic buildings? Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to puncture your pachyderm: Yes - of course. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The nominator has nominated the wrong article for deletion, in my opinion. This article is a list of notable buildings, and a navigational aid. Instead, I would encourage the nominator to delete the entire "Notable Masonic Temples" section at Masonic Temple and provide a "See Also" link to this list article instead. Also, I would encourage the nominator to nominate Masonic Temple (disambiguation) for deletion, as it is completely unnecessary and does not function as a disambiguation page. SnottyWong talk 19:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the buildings on the list are all notable... individually ... that is not the question... the question is are they notable as a specific group. Is the grouping notable. The vast majority of them are notable for reasons other than for being a Masonic building. Most are notable for being historic buildings (and I have no problem listing them in a List of historic buildings). No, the title implies that they are notable because they are "Masonic" buildings, but I don't think that is true for most of them. Heck, under Snottywong's reasoning, I could argue that Buckingham Palace (certainly a notable building) belongs on the list (not only were lodge meetings held in the Palace historically, but I believe a Lodge currently meets in the building, which is more than we can say for many of the buildings that are on the list). I don't argue to include Buckingham Palace... because the building is not notable for being Masonic. Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find reliable sources which confirm that freemasons meet (or have met) at Buckingham Palace, then I think there is an argument that it should be added to the list. If there are specific unsourced items in this list that you don't think have any connection to freemasons, then feel free to challenge them individually. I see your point that the inclusion criteria for the list isn't crystal clear, but I don't think that means the article should be deleted, it just means that the inclusion criteria should be defined. In my opinion, the inclusion criteria should either be "any notable building that has hosted freemason meetings for a significant period of time" or "any notable building which was originally built by the freemasons, or specifically for the purpose of hosting freemason meetings". Either of these would work, although the latter is more conservative and restrictive (and better, in my opinion). The former is a borderline non-encylopedic cross-categorization (i.e., it's equivalent to List of buildings in which Freemasons have held meetings). SnottyWong talk 23:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I could live with a definition of "A building originally built for the purpose of holding Masonic meetings, and still used for that purpose" (or at least not modified to the point where it could no longer perform its original purpose)... unfortunately it does not resolve the most important issue... We need to establish that Masonic buildings are notable as a class. WP:NOTE requires that we establish that the topic is notable. So I will repeat the question I asked earlier... are there any reliable sources that discuss the topic of Masonic buildings? If not, then we should delete this list. Blueboar (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked? I found these in about 90 seconds: [10][11][12][13]. I think AfD was the wrong venue for this discussion. I think what you really should do is request a move of this page to List of Masonic temples with the intention of clarifying the inclusion criteria. Once the move is complete, you can cull any buildings which don't meet the inclusion criteria. I don't see this article getting deleted in its current state though. SnottyWong talk 01:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources you found aren't really credible to establishing notability. The 1st is EB stating where the term appears in the EB, and it doesn't occur as a title for an entry therein. #2 is a Google search where maybe 20 pages of the whole are even on the subject. #3 and #4 are not really on the money either. So, I don't see topical notability established. MSJapan (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on "not on the money"? Link #3 is to a book entitled Masonic Temples: Freemasonry, Ritual Architecture, and Masculine Archetypes. How much more "on the money" can you get? Let's get real. Masonic buildings are usually large, architecturally unique, landmark buildings in large cities around the world. They are almost always notable. There are books written on the subject. The buildings are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I'm a self-admitted deletionist and I can't see any way to argue that Masonic buildings are not notable. SnottyWong talk 04:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make assumptions, Snottiywong... you state that "Masonic buildings are usually large, architecturally unique, landmark buildings in large cities around the world."... This simply isn't the case at all... While some fit this description (especially those buildings that were built to house the various Grand Lodges), the vast majority of Masonic buildings (and the majority of those on the list) are architecturally non-notable, and are located small towns and cities. To give you a good sampling... while the Masonic Temple (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) and Masonic Temple (Chicago, Illinois) certainly fit your description ... compare them to Masonic Temple (Gainesville, Florida), AF and AM Lodge 687, Masonic Temple (Kent, Ohio), and Masonic Temple (Rock Springs, Wyoming). Blueboar (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those references are pretty superficial -- not indicating notability of "Masonic buildings" as a topic, and particularly not explaining why the topic of "Masonic buildings not including Scottish Rite buildings, Shriners buildings, and others not using 'Masonic' in the name" would be notable. The book does suggest (consistent with a point made in one of the earlier discussions of the various "masonic building" pages) that Masonic architecture is a notable topic (albeit one with substantial overlap with Egyptian Revival and other topics related to the architectural styles favored by Freemasonry). However, neither this list, nor any of the other masonic building pages, is an article about Masonic architecture -- and this indiscriminate list would not even be a useful starting point for creating such an article. --Orlady (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll give you that, Blueboar. From both yours and Orlady's comments, however, it still sounds to me like you've got a list with an unclear inclusion criteria. Come to a consensus on what the inclusion criteria should be, and then delete everything that doesn't fit. Whatever's left is this article. SnottyWong talk 14:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Say what?!? Blueboar and I are saying that this article should be deleted because (among other things) it has unclear inclusion criteria (NB: I also contend that it is not possible to identify any inclusion criteria that will not result in an indiscriminate and inherently unmaintainable list). Now, if I read your comment correctly, you are saying that the list should be retained, and we who support its deletion must take responsibility for defining an appropriate set of inclusion criteria (to help you achieve your objective of keeping it). Is this truly what you intended to say, or am I misreading you? --Orlady (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You interpreted my comments correctly, although I didn't mean to suggest it was your responsibility to fix the article. I'm merely suggesting that it can be fixed through normal editing. The fact that the list has an unclear inclusion criteria basically means that there are some elements in the list which don't belong. They can easily be deleted from the article individually, the entire article need not be deleted. I disagree that it is "not possible" to identify suitable criteria for inclusion. Many have already been suggested above, which would not result in an indiscriminate list. For instance:

1. Any notable building that has hosted freemason meetings for a significant period of time.
2. Any notable building which was originally built by the freemasons (or whose construction was funded primarily by freemasons), or which was specifically built for the purpose of hosting freemason meetings.
3. A building originally built for the purpose of holding Masonic meetings, and is still used for that purpose.

In my opinion, option #1 is not restrictive enough and option #3 is too restrictive. However, all 3 of these inclusion criteria do not result in an indiscriminate list. Deletion is not productive when all that needs to be done is to come to a consensus on an inclusion criteria, and then cull the article of elements which do not meet that criteria. SnottyWong talk 16:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there are both terminology and notability critieria issues somewhat clouding the discussion. Probably not helped by the proliferation of a single article under multiple titles. The fact that there is such an effort to try to justify is indicative that it's not all that notable, as an article.

The terminology issue reflects the lack of uniformity in Freemasonry worldwide. Personally I would say that a temple is the room within which a lodge is formed. That room may or may not be within a building dedicated to masonic use.

Returning to the point about finding an inclusion criterion, it seems that there is a majority opinion that mere inclusion in this USian focused register does not qualify, therefore all the red-links can be culled for the moment. If the building is notable enough at some point to justify an article then it can be indexed and categorised in whatever way prevails.

That leaves two points, is the subject of buildings with masonic associations sufficiently notable to justify an article, and thence what justifies inclusion of an already existing article? I'm unconvinced of the former in the first place, but if majority opinion is that it should remain then the latter comes in to play.

I have to confess that I'm struggling with that, I have in mind some buildings that I'd see as notable, but I'm not sure at the moment that I see a common theme. The three GL buildings in London, Edinburgh and Dublin are about the only clear ones. One of the challenges is the need to draw a distinction between the Lodge and the building. I see Mother Kilwinning No0 as notable, but Kilwinning Masonic Lodge probably isn't. Canonbury Tower may be notable, but Canonbury Tower Lodge probably isn't.

ALR (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, "USian" meaning U.S.-centric (!). It's a side point, but a criteria saying no redlinks can be included is not rational, cannot be enforced, is inappropriate, does not help. You cannot ban having redlinks on a list-article. Also, in about 15 minutes i or anyone familiar with the NRHP stub article generator machine could create stub articles for all of the redlinks, which are all (i think) NRHP-listed places. It's not clear in the article that they are NRHP-listed but i believe these all are. The list-article has NOT attracted random additions of just any Masonic meetingplace. The deletion nominator has deleted the redlinks before off of the list and i have reverted that. Given that they are named "Masonic Temple" or similarly, it is highly likely that most meet any reasonable criteria for inclusion in the list, hence they are good candidates for this list-article. I have in fact noted one apparent exception, a Masonic Temple-named building that is in fact NRHP-listed more for its Jewish synagogue usage and i think renovations for that usage. But determining which ones are highly relevant for the list-article should be left to list-article developers who can also develop the individual articles, for example by requesting and reading the free NRHP application documents that are reliable, good sources. I object to the determined ignorance of the deletion nominator about the buildings that are currently listed in the list-article. As has been previously discussed at its Talk page i think, the fact one person doesn't know anything about a subject does not justify their deleting redlinks that they know nothing about. I do know they are wikipedia-notable places. The deletion nominator has repeatedly asserted non-interest in developing the individual articles and the list-article, which is fine, but then the person should stop opening new AFDs, merger proposals, discussion sections on the same topic of imperfections of this list-article. --doncram (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether the links are red or blue, comments by Snottywong (such as "This article is a list of notable buildings, and a navigational aid") and the above comment by Doncram indicate that this is a list of buildings with some sort of Masonic association that either have Wikipedia articles or appear to be notable for one reason or another, thus qualifying them for Wikipedia articles. That -- including the navigation value mentioned by Snottywong -- is excellent basis for creating a category, but it is not a reason to create a list in article space. Since Category:Masonic buildings exists, and the individual redlinked buildings are all linked in lists named in the pattern National Register of Historic Places listings in County, State, the list could be deleted without ado. --Orlady (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, I believe your comments above are in direct contradiction with WP:LISTPURP. SnottyWong talk 18:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns are based in Wikipedia policy (WP:NOT, especially the sections WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the discussion of "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" in WP:NOTDIR). In contrast the "LISTPURP" is a section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists) that discusses practical aspects of (and good practices for) lists and categories. The Wikipedia manual of style does not supersede Wikipedia policy. --Orlady (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that separating out the issue of the article notability and the criteria for inclusion in the list is a useful way to clarify your arguments for retention. At the moment I'm getting an impression of quite a circular argument here, buildings are notable because they're notable. I'm afraid that Wikipedia criteria for notability are more significant than just being listed in this register. There should be multiple, substantive mentions in independent sources. That would give enough substance to argue for an article to exist. Personally I think that they artificially pad out the article in question with red links making it look more significant than it is.

I would also suggest that it's perhaps more constructive to avoid commenting on personal motivation of the nominator here and elsewhere. I would suggest that it undermines the argument for retention.

Can I suggest also that it's up to you to demonstrate notability of the article topic, and the various entries in it. Can you provide multiple sources that support your assertion that any list of buildings with Masonic significance is notable in the first instance?

ALR (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a listing of notable buildings. The notability of the buildings can be established by the individual Wikipedia articles for each building. The red-linked buildings, while they are problematic and need to be dealt with, do not imply that this is a list of non-notable buildings (and they are not a reason to delete the entire article). In fact, presumably all of the blue- and red-linked buildings appear in a Register of Historic Places (whether American, Canadian, or other), which is itself a sign of notability. So, I think we can agree that the (majority of the) elements of the list are notable. As for the list itself, there is a clear pattern common to all of them. They were all built by and/or associated with a particular organized group. So, this is not just a random cross-categorization and therefore does not violate WP:NOTDIR. Per WP:LISTPURP, this list serves as a navigational aid and is redundant with its category page (and that is actually encouraged). The buildings may also show up in other list articles (like List of historical buildings in County, State) and there is no problem with that because the buildings may fall into multiple categories, and readers should be able to search through them based on the different categories of which they are a part. I have provided sources above which show that there are encyclopedia articles and books devoted to the subject of Masonic buildings and Masonic temples. What else can I provide to you? SnottyWong talk 19:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we were talking about a list entitled List of buildings on the NRHP or List of historic buildings I would agree with you (as those are both notable topics)... but we are not... For an article List of X to pass WP:NOTE, it must be established (through reliable sources) that X is a notable topic. That has not been established for "Masonic buildings" (and I believe can not be established) Blueboar (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The buildings may be notable, although I still question whether listing in a single source meets the demands of the notability, what I do have concerns about is whether Masonic buildings per se are notable, and then whether these individual buildings qualify for inclusion by dint of their association with the craft. As Blueboar identifies, if the name of the list indicated that it's a list of buildings listed in X then fair enough.

I would argue that the sources you've identified above only really confirm that the two words are used together inside a number of volumes, it's not clear from the listing whether the subjective is substantially the architecture of Masonic Buildings. In one case all you have is a title, no synopsis. In the UK and Europe many masonic buildings are either re-use or pretty nondescript, the main interest in masonic architecture tends to be about the temple, not the building.

Anyway, if the majority opinion is that the list stays then fair enough, we have another list of majority red-links or possibly blue links leading off to a host of almost identical one line articles.

ALR (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a fair characterization of the articles to which this list links. There are some stubs, but there are also some very detailed articles. Here are the first two random ones I chose: Masonic Lodge Building (Kirkland, Washington) and Salt Lake Masonic Temple. Ok, so your newest argument is that when you have List of X then X needs to be notable. Would it help it we renamed this article List of Masonic temples? We have a Masonic temple article, so therefore that term should be notable. SnottyWong talk 20:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, they're not temples. I've highlighted above that part of the difficulty here is the terminology, and why.

ALR (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You indicated your personal interpretation of the definition of a Masonic temple. Is that the actual definition? Are there sources to back that up? SnottyWong talk 21:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite probably there is, however we've deviated somewhat. I made some observations about terminology and how we define things, to illustrate some of the challenges in finding inclusion criteria, and ended up attacked by Doncram for some reason. I don't believe he's made a case of notability for the topic, or for individual inclusion, however I can see ways around that by retitling the article and probably making it US specific, since the main rationale is existence on a US document. I also don't think that you've made a case for notability.

Notwithstanding all of that, if the majority opinion is that the list remains then it remains. That's largely fair enough, that's how Wikipedia works.

ALR (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with that. Let's see how the rest of the discussion goes, and let the closing admin call it. SnottyWong talk 21:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note here... ALR is correct, Masonic Hall, Masonic Centre, Masonic Temple, etc. are all terms which mean essentially the same thing... a place where Freemasons meet, no more no less. This is frequently a specific building (and could be a great big fancy purpose built building), but it could also be a rented room at the community center. Which term is used really depends on what area of the world you are in and who you talk to. The United Grand Lodge of England in London meets at "Freemason's Hall"... In New York City its "Masonic Hall"... but in Philadelphia they meet at the "Masonic Temple". The terminology is not something you can base anything on.

As for the article Masonic Temple... When I created that article, I assumed it was a notable topic... but I am having difficulty finding any sources that discuss it, and am beginning to think it may not be as notable as I assumed after all. Blueboar (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About suggestions to retitle the article and make it US specific, I think that is not necessary. There are non-U.S.-located significant Masonic buildings, including notable ones "from Rome and Paris to Washington and Pushkin", mentioned in the fourth of the 4 sources Snotty rounded up easily. The fact that the list-article is incomplete does not suggest it needs to be deleted or renamed. --doncram (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I really think you are still just arguing over inclusion criteria. There is obviously no clear definition of what a "Masonic building" is. Big deal! If you define the inclusion criteria such that any building that passes it is notable, then you've solved the problem. If you make the inclusion criteria something like: "Any building that is notable on its own, which was also built by (or whose construction was primarily financed by) the freemasons" ... and then get rid of all of the buildings that don't fit that criteria, and then change the lead so that the inclusion criteria is clearly stated..... then you have just solved all of the problems you have with this article. Believe me, I probably !vote to delete about 90% of the AfD's that I contribute to. This one, however, I just don't see any reason to delete. SnottyWong talk 03:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - List based solely on NRHP listings, the actual listings for which are unavailable. Given the general criteria, any "Masonic building" >50 years old could be eligible for no other reason that the "historical notability" of being the first Masonic building in a given town. Without more solid indications, all we will end up wit his an unwieldy list. Furthermore, the classification and title are unnecessarily vague, and we at WP:FM haven't even quite hammered out what "Masonic building" is as a term. Once we do that, we can recreate it if needed, but I see this article as needless overcat with far too many redlinks. Having checked the NRHP site, the info behind the buildings is not accessible, and therefore there's nothing to build articles with to prevent redlinks. MSJapan (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely wrong in your premise. What is NRHP-listed is freely available in copies of the National Register's NRIS database, downloadable. Also the wealth of detail in usually 20-30 page NRHP application documents are freely available. For only some states, including CT, VA, NY and perhaps others the NRHP application documents are available on-line. For others they are available for free upon request by email to nr_reference (at) nps.gov, to be emailed if scanned already or otherwise to be sent for free by postal mail. It has been upheld in multiple AFDs that NRHP-listed properties are Wikipedia-notable (because there is good documentation / reliable sourcing available for all, and all have passed several levels of review by state and federal officials regarding historic notability according to a set of objective criteria. Briefly, there is tons of info available to build articles for any redlinks that are NRHP-listed places (which i believe applies to most/all of the redlinks). --doncram (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I may be harshing on the deletion nominator, but the deletion nominator has elswhere expressed unwillingness/lack of personal interest in developing the NRHP articles. That's fine. But it is inappropriate to nominate a list-article for deletion on basis that the supporting documents have not been requested and used to develop the topic. The Wikipedia is not done yet, sure, but this is a valid topic for a list-article and the redlinks can most or all be developed with no notability issues. --doncram (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your PS is out of line... This AfD isn't about me or what I am or am not interested in editing ... this AfD is about one specific list article (List of Masonic buildings) and whether it should be deleted or not.

Now... I think we should focus on whether we can actually demonstrate that the topic of that article is notable. Snottywong has given us a few sources to examine, and I have done so... I agree with MSJapan's take that they do not adequately demonstrate the notability of the topic ... the one that comes closest is #3 (William Moore's Masonic Temples: Freemasonry, Ritual Architecture, and Masculine Archetypes). I am familiar with this book... despite its title, the book's focus is predominantly on interior design of Masonic lodge rooms, and not the buildings themselves. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is any such demonstration standard required. This list-article seems generally in accordance with wp:SALAT appropriate topics for stand-alone list-articles. Looking at essay wp:LISTCRUFT IMO this does not meet any criterion for being crufty. I think you are not familiar with list-articles in Wikipedia (and i have previously suggested links to you for you to become more familiar with them, in some of the other discussion sections opened about this same topic). This list-article is clearly more useful and has encyclopedic potential far higher than many/most well-accepted list-articles in Wikipedia. --doncram (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could not disagree more... all articles must meet the inclusion requirements laid out at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline... even lists. Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the list-article meets standalone list criteria for being useful, as it clearly provides useful navigation among Masonic-associated buildings. I don't participate often in AFDs on list-articles so I could be corrected by someone providing contrary examples, but I don't believe that editors of other list-articles are forced to come up with the type of evidence that you would demand. It should suffice that many of the NRHP-listed ones are probably being presented as a good example of their type, Masonic buildings. And we even have some awareness that this "type" is somewhat unique, following its own architecture. It's a topic of interest to some. --doncram (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the couple of extraneous non-notable items in this list were deleted, then this list would consists solely of notable buildings. So, the ideal, perfect version of this list is a list of notable items. Furthermore, all of these items have a common, non-trivial trait between them. Show me another list of notable items which all share a common, non-trivial trait which has been deleted. Or, show me a policy/guideline which says that that is not enough to have a list article. That is practically the definition of what a list article should be. SnottyWong talk 04:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "common non-trivial trait"? Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, Blueboar has been given an exceptional amount of attention by wikipedia editors answering this question and his other variations, here and in about 15 other AFDs, mainspace article Talk page sections, WikiProject Freemasonry talk page sections, and other locations. Enough! I would like to move that this AFD be closed as an obvious KEEP, based especially on Snotty's patient explanations so far to the deletion nominator. --doncram (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup... when you can not answer the questions or address the issues raised, attack the editor who raises them... I repeat my last question: What is the "common non-trivial trait" that Snotty is talking about?" Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um.. the fact that they are all associated in some way with the freemasons? Do I really need to spell that out? Look, there very well may be entries in this list that are non-notable buildings. If that's the case, then the solution is to clarify the inclusion criteria, and delete the non-notable entries. The "common non-trivial trait" can even be strengthened by choosing a restrictive inclusion criteria, i.e. that the building must be #1) notable on its own, and #2) its construction primarily financed by the freemasons. There is no argument to delete the entire article. Please read WP:ATD. SnottyWong talk 14:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would moving this article to List of notable Masonic buildings help? SnottyWong talk 14:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No - blunt notability is an inclusion criteria for WP articles, not for lists. As they're presumed notable just to be here, "notability" is still too broad a criterion for a long worldwide list. "Masonic buildings in City" would be good though, "Significant (tighter than notable) buildings in Country" or "Masonic buildings by Architect", "Masonic buildings with spires/helipads/jacuzzis" might be relevant too. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article being too long is not grounds for deletion. SnottyWong talk 16:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing to delete this as a concept, but to implement it better through using a category. An unqualified list of "Any Masonic buildings" would be either incomplete (as here), or far too long to be manageable. A readable, completed article on a manageable list needs to be qualified into more specific lists. An open-ended list of everything works better as a category. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an argument for deletion. What you are describing is just a regular editing process which does not require the deletion of the article in question. SnottyWong talk 20:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was the case... you are assuming that "being associated in some way with the Freemasons" is non-trivial. I don't think that is a valid assumption. There are a lot of things "associated in some way with the Freemasons" that are trivial. To show that "Freemasons meet in these buildings" (which accounts for all the various terms being used) is a non-trivial trait, you need sources that discuss the trait. I contend that the fact that we can not come up with any, indicates that the trait is, in fact, trivial. You asked for a policy/guideline which says we should not have this article... Start with WP:NOTE and move on to WP:V... "if no reliable sources discuss a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". No sources on the topic... no article. It is that simple. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, you are bordering pretty close on wikilawyering now. Of course there are a lot of things associated with the Freemasons that are trivial. That statement could be made about any subject. Just because trivial things associated with Freemasons exist doesn't mean that the buildings which were built by the Freemasons are trivial. These buildings wouldn't exist were it not for the Freemasons. How can you possibly categorize that connection as trivial? SnottyWong talk 16:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't wiki-laywering, this is what WP:NOTE and AfD is all about. We can not just assume that a topic is notable, we have to demonstrate that it is notable... by referencing reliable sources. So... show that "buildings which were built by the Freemasons" is not a trivial topic... locate some reliable sources that discuss that topic (by any term or name you wish to call the topic). I have looked, I have not been able to find any. It really is that simple.

Our articles on Masonic temple and Masonic lodge prove the notability of those topics. If the list elements are notable, and they are included as a result of a reasonable inclusion criteria (which links them in a significant, non-random way), then that's all that's required for a list article. SnottyWong talk 19:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clear inclusion criteria. Meets WP:List and WP:CLN discounts the category duplicative arguement. The fact that it is duplicative of three DAB pages might indicate the DAB pages are ill-concieved. As they are special kinds of lists, it seems inappropriate to make the duplicative statement based on them. I am confident there are 1000s of DAB pages that duplicate other real lists. A rename to the effect: List of Masonic Lodges, Temples and Buildings would certainly simplify things. Deletion is not the answer here.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a very open-ended set of buildings that's likely to expand. As such, categorization to Category:Masonic buildings is a far more practical way to manage it.

I'd have no problem with List of <foo> Masonic buildings, where this was some more restrictively defined subset of them. Masonic buildings in Washington, or Ingolstadt could benefit from such an overall list, but at a worldwide scale it's simply too big to go into additional detail.

There's some justification to a list article over a category because it offers the editorial convenience of showing redlinks for future article targets. Although that's in use here, they seem to be taken from a gazeteer of the Midwest, rather than world Masonic buildings by significance: Muncie but not the Royal Masonic Schools? As it's an editorial worklist (and useful as such) it could easily exist on the category or project's talk: pages. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting the information that this set of buildings is likely to expand to the point that it will become unmanageably large? I haven't seen any evidence of that, and furthermore, as I've explained numerous times above, a careful definition of the inclusion criteria for the list can prevent this from happening, by limiting the list to buildings that are already notable on their own. If anything, this argument is actually counterproductive to your delete !vote, as it shows how much information is potentially available to add to this article.

Secondly, as you should already know, Andy, the fact that an article is incomplete or US-centric is not grounds for deletion. "Why don't you spend your time improving the article instead of arguing for its deletion?" Ahh, how the tables have turned... SnottyWong talk 15:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

49 entries in the list at present, out of a category that already contains 60 entries and can easily expand far beyond this. Either the list article stalls where it is mostly redlinked, it grows to a level that's truly unwieldy, or it gains filter criteria that include some notable articles and exclude other equally notable, but irrelevant, articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: There are 60 pages in the "Masonic buildings" category and an additional 35 pages in its subcategories. --Orlady (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. We need to define better inclusion criteria. I've said this at least 10 times already. None of what you are saying is an argument to delete the article. Your suggestions are all regular editing processes which have nothing to do with the deletion of this article. SnottyWong talk 20:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userify this, copy it to your sandbox, paste it as headers into new list articles that can have a viable future. "List of any and all Masonic buildings" can't fly. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument for deletion. SnottyWong talk 20:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is ILIKEIT (which is essentially the keep argument here) ... sources people... it comes down to the simple question of whether there are sources that discuss this topic. We can tinker with the inclusion criteria till the cows come home... but it is pointless to do so if there are no reliable sources that discuss the topic. Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your question is purely that of notability, do you support the deletion of Category:Masonic buildings too? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I am not sure about the category... My gut reaction is to say yes... if the underlying topic is non-notable we should not have a category... but I am not as familiar with the rules and guidelines for categories as I am with articles. Categories are purely "behind the scenes" navigational tools. They are not in "Article Space" and I know different standards apply. The same is somewhat true for the dab page [[Masonic Temple {disambiguation)]]. dab pages are purely navigational in intent... and it is accepted that different rules and standards govern them (for example, I don't know if WP:V or WP:NOTE applies to dab pages... they apply to the articles being disambiguated, but I don't think they apply to the dab page itself... or at least not in the same way). Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE - I have put Masonic Temple up for deletion as well. Similar reasons... Lack of sources to substantiate notability. Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In view of the overlapping nature of the two pages (along with other pages such as Masonic Temple (disambiguation)), the closing admin would be well-advised to evaluate this AfD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple at the same time (rather than handling them in isolation). --Orlady (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most lists in Wikipedia have not been published elsewhere, yet serve the wikipedia well in organizing information for readers. The list topic does comply with content policy. What content policy, specifically, do you think is violated? --doncram (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram - Good question. I've asked the same question before in response to this editor's boilerplate list deletion rationale in multiple AfDs. Here--Mike Cline (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If there are no reliable, third-party sources for the list itself, then Wikipedia should not have such a list either. Mike, I am sorry to prick your bubble, but if there is no such list in the real world, then there should not be one in Wikipedia. This article might make an interesting appendices to a book or paper on this topic, but that is not a good reason to create a list here, for Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• UPDATE on Virginia, as an example I added to the Virginia section of this list article, which now covers 4 unique and interesting Masonic buildings. This includes sufficient sourced material that I think any reasonable person should agree shows they are significant Masonic buildings. One is a "Hall", one is a "Temple", one is a "Memorial", one is a "Lodge"; all served as Masonic meetingplaces and are primarily known for their Masonic associations. (Aside: By the way, none of the 4 VA items are covered in the competing list-article Masonic Temple. At least one was listed there but, as a redlink then, was repeatedly deleted. It seems stupid to me to delete items off a list-article that are temporary red-links, when they are expected to become important, relevant items in the list-article.) Please see List of Masonic buildings#Virginia. --doncram (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• UPDATE on sources which establish notability: ::::Let's look at google hits alone. A search for "Masonic temple" -wikipedia yields 933,000 results. A search for "Masonic lodge" -wikipedia yields 1,220,000 results. An awful lot of people seem to like taking pictures of these mundane, non-notable objects. There's also a decent amount of news about them. Let's look at a couple of books on the subject:

• The Art and Architecture of Freemasonry
• An encyclopaedia of freemasonry and its kindred sciences
• Detroit's Masonic Temple
• Masonic temples: freemasonry, ritual architecture, and masculine archetypes
• Masonic Architecture.
• The secret architecture of our nation's capital: the Masons and the Building of Washington D.C.

SnottyWong talk 15:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... let's actually look at these books...

• The Art and Architecture of Freemasonry ... primarily about the symbolism of Masonic art and decoration... no substantial discussion of Masonic buildings as buildings.
• Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry ... Discusses architecture as a science... does not discuss the topic of Masonic buildings as tall.
• Detroit's Masonic Temple - About one specific building ... not the topic of Masonic buildings in general.
• Masonic temples: freemasonry, ritual architecture, and masculine archetypes... we have already discussed this one above... it is about the interior decoration of a lodge rooms... not the buildings.
• Masonic Architecture - OK, the Livingston Masonic Library here in NY did not have this one available... so I have not yet checked to see if it discusses the topic of "Masonic buildings".
• The secret architecture of our nation's capital: the Masons and the Building of Washington D.C. About the Architecture of Washington DC... not about Masonic buildings.

So, of the six sources you suggest we look at... only one might possibly perhaps (maybe) support the idea that the topic of "Masonic buildings" is notable (and I will be checking on that)... the rest do not. (Please, do not assume that a source discusses a topic based on a quick google search and the book's title.) Blueboar (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep clearly sufficient sources. Its bad enough when people write articles without listing the sources; it's even worse when experience WPedians try to delete them without looking themselves. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG... you should know me better than that... the entire point of my last post is that I have looked at the sources (unlike those who are !voting to keep)... Please do not assume the sources exist and cover the topic... when in fact they don't. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's try this the other way... can anyone clearly express what does make the topic of "Masonic buildings" notable? Can we identify even three common traits that would help us distinguish a "Masonic building" from some other type of building? Blueboar (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(with strikeout) Same question as Blueboar asked 4 minutes before, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple, where it has been responded to. --doncram (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not strikeout someone else's comments. It is considered disruptive. While the questions are indeed essentially the same... they are also slightly different ... as this one asks about the broader topic of "Masonic buildings" while the question asked at the other AfD asks about the narrower topic of "Masonic Temples". Since you were unable or unwilling to answer the question as it relates to the more specific topic, can I assume that you can or will not answer it as it relates to the broader topic? Blueboar (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is interested in answering your questions, because there is no WP policy that says "any article about which less than three common traits can be identified must be deleted". You're making up silly rules as you go along, and no one is interested in playing the game anymore. We have already demonstrated notability six ways from Sunday. Let's agree to disagree and let the closing admin do his/her job. SnottyWong ^comment 22:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but there is a WP policy that says an article topic must be notable... so what about the first part of my question... can you express what makes the topic of Masonic buildings notable? Blueboar (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Snotty could ask the Article Rescue Squadron for help? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 20 June 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. I just figured it is a literal copy of Dutch_name#History_of_Dutch_surnames, with no aditional information added. That article also explains the extremely odd names. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch surnames

List of Dutch surnames (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 am not sure what to think of this article. It is apparently a woefully incomplete list which is apparently redundant with List_of_most_common_surnames_in_Europe#Netherlands. The second list actually seems to be based upon some census rather then being a random list of surnames.

Also, common surnames would be "Rotten people", "Excrement", "Born Naked" and "urinates"? Seems extremely dubious. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Seems like a hoax to me.... Dengero (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:23, 13 June 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 WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kiladar

Kiladar (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 definition of a word, and shouldn't be an article under WP:DICTIONARY? Dengero (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article's not simply a definition of a word, but concerns a notable title - "Kiladar was a title for the governor of a fort or large town in medieval India". Claritas § 12:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or expand) - the article appears to be a definition and an etymology, that it refers to something notable doesn't change WP:DICTIONARY. However, if the concept can be expanded on, as was done at the similar entry Faujdar, would make this article an keep. --Joe Decker (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep With the article as now expanded, it seems clearly a "keep." --Joe Decker (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is not just a word --Sodabottle (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - Notable title/designation. Arjun^codename024 19:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. The sources quoted should provide material. Favonian (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - reworked sentence 2 to help make it clear this is an office/title, rather than simply a word in the language. I do thank the original submitter for trying to keep down the needless dictionary entries, but I don't think this is one of them.- Sinneed 21:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Although it's clearly a good-faith nomination, the subject is notable and the article itself is well written and well referenced. Admittedly it's also short, but could probably be expanded with further historical detail. Doc Tropics 17:20, 14 June 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 Scouting in Kentucky. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BSA Troop 1 Frankfort, Kentucky

BSA Troop 1 Frankfort, Kentucky (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 is completely unsourced, non notable, and speculative. It is about a local Boy Scout troop and per the ScoutingWikiProject's (of which I am coord-emeritus) own guidelines is non notable. I Prod'd this but it was contested. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Scouting in Kentucky. Added one source, there isn't much out there and not enough to support a full article. --Joe Decker (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Well worth noting that this was said to be the first Boy Scout troop in the US, organized through the British organization and predating the Boy Scouts of America, per the one reference. The article Scouting in Kentucky claims that the Burnside scout troop also got its charter from England in 1908 and predates the Frankfort troop's 1909 charter, unless somehow they are the same. More than one ref and more referenced content is needed to have enough content for a stand alone article. If someone can dig out old print newspaper articles in the future and develop the section of Troop 1 it could of course be spun out. I see no basis for inherent notability just because of the claim of primacy (We wuz first!). Edison (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Even significant claims such as this aren't enough to have a standalone article. I've worked for seven years with an Ohio troop that was founded in 1908, but I'm not writing about it. Nyttend (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Scouting in Kentucky since individual Boy Scout troops aren't notable. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 15:56, 14 June 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. This is a classic example of how swamping an afd with irrelevant non-policy based arguments from spa's is a good way to get your article deleted as it is extremely hard to winnow out the wheat from the chaff here. What is clear is that either the book or the individual are notable but its not entirely clear that we have a consensus on either so I'm calling this no-consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Russell Fowler

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Nick Russell Fowler (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)

Nick Russell Fowler is a non-notable person lacking Google Search and Google News hits. Vipinhari || talk 17:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If he is the same person reviewed here then he's probably notable. Hekerui (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In regard to the assertion that Nick Fowler is a non-notable person I must submit a grievance on his behalf, as he is a published writer and an extremely talented and seasoned musician and actor. I feel he has every right to keep his entry here and would be appalled if it were deleted. Please allow time for his entry to be brought up to the standards set by the website. Any assistance you could provide to that affect would be greatly appreciated. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talamasca67 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC) — Talamasca67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Agree, agree with Talmasca67-- Fowler is fabulous author and accomplished composer/performer. as noted by Hekeriu-- the book review linked to is high praise for his debut novel. the guy is multi-talented, prolific artist.(Bluedillygal (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)) — Bluedillygal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• KEEP: Nick Russell Fowler is a fantastic writer and musician and is currently working on several new notable projects that I believe will be beneficial to those reading his his profile. I have read and listened to his work and am very impressed at his creativity and talent. Please allow him the opportunity to update his page with current/relevant data. I highly recommend NOT deleting him. Thank You Clwareham (UTC)June 2, 2010Clwareham (talk)CLWareham — Clwareham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Nick Russell Fowler has been a significant musician in New York City for over 18 years. In December 2009 one of his songs was on the TV show "90210" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovecatmusic (talk • contribs) 18:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC) — Lovecatmusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep – original AfD nomination appears to be based solely on Google. Results returned by Google are diluted when several people have the same name, and the order depends on your location (eg India), and other factors like whether you're logged in to a Google service or not. Google returns results aimed to be relevant to you, not arranged in order of notability. Our assessment of Nick Fowler's notability should not be influenced by the number of people called Nick Fowler. Fowler's first novel was published in 2002 and continues to be "in stock" at Amazon.com, and they've provided the "Click to look inside" facility, something they don't do for non-notable works. — Hebrides (talk) 07:15, 5 June 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, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding google searching, the entry is listed as Nick Russell Fowler, but when one searches google for Nick Fowler, the wikipedia entry for Nick Russell Fowler does not show up, which erroneously skews the google reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.67.99 (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC) — 66.65.67.99 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• I agree this is the same Nick Russel Fowler that wrote the very popular novel "A Thing or Two about Curtis and Camillia" Nick is a personal friend of mine since 1990, a former band mate and "brother" for life, I think he deserves to keep his Wikipedia page with all the creative credits he has earned. I don't get what is in question here. I am very impressed with his extensive work and he deserves the right to add to the page as he make his accomplishments. He works so hard for everything he has and is a very self-motivated person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael haar (talk • contribs) 03:00, June 2010 (UTC) — Talamasca67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I'm writing to request that you rescind your rollback of Nick Fowler's page where you state he's a non-notable person. His accomplishments make him notable and I would like his page to continue. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstachenfeld (talk • contribs) 16:52, June 2010 (UTC) — Talamasca67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I am a fan of Nick Fowler's fiction- A Thing or Two About Curtis and Camilla is one of my favorite books, and was in fact recognized as a best new fiction offering. I was curious and dismayed to find his article considered for deletion- when I was showing my sister that page I found it so flagged. Just wonder why? He is a cultural resource to know about, and we are richer for artists-- especially writers- I am biased I guess as a teacher of writing! (Bluedillygal (talk) 13:36, June 2010 (UTC)) — Talamasca67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment The !votes by Michael haar, Mstachenfeld, and Bluedillygal were actually added by the SPA Talamasca67. [14] Edward321 (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Since there has been no discussion in favor of deleting this article, and no further reasons given for its removal, the discussion should be closed, as the over all consensus is this article should remain. The nomination for AfD was also combined with recommendations for this article be better referenced, sourced and linked to. These recommendations for the article have been achieved since its nomination. It is confusing to this contributor that a nomination for AfD was combined with recommendations for improvement if the nominator thinks the article should be deleted. I hereby move the discussion be closed and the article allowed to remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talamasca67 (talk • contribs) 9 June 2010 (UTC) — Talamasca67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Warning to all the new accounts who are fans of Fowler: There is a distinct feeling in my mind that WP:SOCK might be being violated, and that if I am wrong, that loads of people who don't usually edit here have been brought in for the purpose of swaying the vote. This is NOT a vote by numbers. It is a discussion by valid arguments, and I'm not seeing many - if any at all. These discussions usually last for seven days, but may last longer in the absence of suitable discussion. So far, Hebrides has made the only good argument, and the Single Purpose Accounts have come up with the usual SPA gush of enthusiasm without any solid base. Friendship doesn't count. Happening to find this deletion procedure is unlikely (but vaguely possible...). I am neutral on this issue, and would suggest that the SPAs take note of Wikipedias policies and avoid gushing enthusiasm (and also avoid using terms not understood, like rescinding rollback which is totally inapplicable to the case in point). Get some real evidence in. Peridon (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The few independent sources are blatantly misquoted in an attempt to make the subject appear notable. Based on the large number of SPAs involved and their faking of !votes by users who do not exist and have not edited this Afd, strongly recommend Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I moved/added a few comments to this page that were left on Vipinhari's talk page by mistake. Please excuse me if that wasn't acceptable. Your feelings in regard to the WP:SOCK violations are only in your mind. I'd also like an explicit explination for the accusation of "sources being blatantly misquoted". Is it also a policy here to assume just because an account is new that it was created for a single purpose? Talamasca67 (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2010

It is not an official policy, but here in AfD new accounts rarely edit again, and very often say almost the same things in the same ways. My point was that there needs to be a more positive contribution before they are taken note of. Saying that he's notable because someone thinks he's the greatest, or calling for the discussion to be closed, usually mean there are no better arguments. I've taken part in many AfDs, and monitor new account edits, so believe me, I do know what I'm talking about here. And believe that I'm trying to help you. Peridon (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Your experience is duly noted and appreciated, but it is suspect to this contributor that only after a declaration for the discussion to end, was there any interest in regard to the merits of the article or to its editors/contributors. After the initial AfD 7 day discussion expired and then a subsequent relisting, an argument can be made that the latest two opinions were only interjected to give negative feedback to the discussion in support the original nomination. Throwing accusations around to well intentioned editors/contributors for being sockpuppets, gushing SPA cheerleaders and fakes won't encourage anyone to want to take part in the improvment of Wikipedia, anonymously or after the decision is made to create an account. Talamasca67 (talk) 11 June 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Please see Comment above by Edward321 (not the Delete !vote) and then tell me that I'm "Throwing accusations around to well intentioned editors/contributors" again... Peridon (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please rewind a little. We should actually be debating the notability of Nick Fowler. I suggest we all eschew argumentum ad hominem, remind ourselves that Assuming Good Faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia, and resume a calm, objective and reasoned assessment of Nick Fowler against Wikipedia's notability criteria. It's all too easy to get sidetracked… — Hebrides (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Author of a notable book. The novel has 17 Google news Hits. [15] including 3 articles about it in the NYTimes, including a full signed review. [16] I have no way of judging the notability of his music. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google searches indicate a lack of notability. His book may be notable, however.--PinkBull 07:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, the google searches and sources as provided in this ongoing discussion specifically DO show his meeting WP:CREATIVE per his work receiving "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Notability for his notable work IS his per guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That subsection appears to apply to "collective body of work"s, where an article about the artist would be easier to format then an article about the varied artwork. If a book is semi-notable, thus making the author semi-notable, it would make more sense to have an article about the book then an article about the author.--PinkBull 03:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, that section aplies to either an individual piece of work OR a collective body of work, as long as the work (whether individual or collective) "has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". The author has that coverage and thus that notability. But I also wish to make note that there are assertions of notability within the article for things other than just the book... so my own sense is that it serves the project to have the article remain and grow and be improved through course of regular editing. And too... there is no book article in existance. If or when the book article is or might be written, the other information and assertions contained in the current BLP would have no proper place within that article about a book. I further note that within these pages we have many articles on books as well as seperate articles on their authors... so both may one day exist in this case. With respects, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems like you're correct regarding the interpretation of the policy and may also be correct in your notability analysis. I'm withdrawing my initial vote.--PinkBull 06:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The article does need improvemnts, certainly... but I believe that it is do-able. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:MUSIC. There is a lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Location (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well... Fails WP:MUSICBIO? Maybe. He also fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:DIPLOMAT. However, failing subsidiary inclusion criteria does not in any way denigrate already meeting WP:GNG per the multiple critical reviews of his novel... thus also meeting WP:CREATIVE through the found sources as offered elsewhere in this discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that the introductory sentence refers to him as a "singer/songwriter", WP:MUSIC is relevant. The article does not, however, mention anything about him being an athlete or a diplomat - thus WP:ATHLETE and WP:DIPLOMAT are irrelevant. I am also not convinced that a handful of reviews about one of his books establishes the work or the author as "significant" or "well known", particularly when there has been no commentary about the book since it came out. I am similarly unconvinced that having one bit part in one 1999 episode of the Sopranos makes him a notable actor. Tonto Tonto apparently was a musical guest on The Tonight Show but that is not enough to get him or his band past WP:MUSIC. There is no doubt that this person is ambitious, but I do not believe there is enough that qualifies as significant in-depth coverage about the subject to pass WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Location (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  My coments were intended only to show that not meeting some guidelines does not in any way dismiss his meeting others. He already meets the instructions at WP:AUTHOR as his work as an author "has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Okay... this individual is active in many fields. Yes, his acting fails ENT, and his music may or may not meet MUSICBIO. But missing on meeting those criteria does not detract from his having met the specific language and intent of AUTHOR. With respects, that makes use of non-applicable criteria irrelevent and misleading to our discussing the notability criteria he does meet. This would make concerns over article focus a matter to be addressed through regular editing, and does not call for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nick Fowler is noteworthy author and musician. I am a member of this community! See my page on Stan Herd, another notable artist who is not Christo (Super famous) but whose work is important nonetheless!Also- I developed the Crop Art page from tiny stub last fall... so bluedillygal is not a sockpuppet, nor random passerby. 128.186.130.70 (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)— 128.186.130.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep The guy wrote a great and popular book published by a major house (Knopf) and he received a full-page glowing review in the Sunday Book Review section of the NYTimes--That alone warrants inclusion. The fact that he is also a successful musician is secondary but at least interesting. Damn, that book was great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feltman (talk • contribs) 17:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Talamasca67, Clwareham, 66.65.67.99, 128.186.130.70, Feltman are single-purpose accounts created for the purposes of promotion and advocacy. They have made few or no other edits outside this topic. Vipinhari || talk 17:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The NY Times review, plus many other reviews turning up in the Google news search for his debut novel denotes him as a notable author. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr Fowler seems to be a rather talented young American writer and musician who has written a novel that was reviewed quite favorably in the NY Times Book Review some years ago, has been the lead singer of a musical group that was under contract for a major international record company, and has been a professional writer of music for performers in the American C&W genre. According to sources, he continues to write fiction and music, and continues to perform, all at a high level. I wonder why would anyone suggest that information about this young man and his work is neither noteworthy nor of interest as his career develops. Avi5000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avi5000 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC) — Avi5000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment - Another SPA - Avi5000. The above one is his/her first contribution. Vipinhari || talk 06:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Comment – in addition to my "Keep" comments above (5th June) about his 2002 novel that is still in stock at Amazon (with "Click to look inside"), I have just been listening to his album "Short of Grace" on Spotify. A Google search for |"Nick Fowler" "short of grace"| shows it is also on iTunes and available from Amazon. I consider that taken together these present sufficient evidence of notability to warrant a place for this article on Wikipedia.

• Comment – the notion that the notability of Mr Fowler is somehow reduced by comments on this page by SPAs is ridiculous. At best, their contributions may add some evidence of notability; at worst they may be irrelevant or biased and should be ignored in our assessment of this matter. Let us base our assessment on real facts and simply ignore anything that doesn't contribute in a valid way to this discussion. We all know it’s not a vote. — Hebrides (talk) 07:29, 19 June 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 This might not have been brought here if the nominator was perhaps more thorough in his searches so as to elminate the false positives caused by Fowler having a common name... but I can understand the difficulty he may have faced. However, as a musican, software engineer, actor and author, I note his receiving coverage for his work in multiple multiple sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Washington Post, Cahners Business Information, New York Times, Entertainment Weekly Also worth noting is that he's written for Metal Edge, Teen Beat, and other notable magazines, and has appeared on The Tonight Show and The Sopranos et al.[17][18] While the article might well benefit from some cleanup, that would seem a matter for regular editing and not deletion. Failing subsidiary guidelines does not mater one bit if already passing GNG. And though neutrally notified of this discussion,[19] I am not a SPA and this is my own researched and guideline supported opinion. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:24, 19 June 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 Survivor: Borneo. and delete. BLP1E clearly applies and many of the keep votes are not policy based. I discarded Pinkbull's delete vote as it was contradictory. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Striking comment about pinkbull's vote which was broken by a typo. Post close amendment makes no difference to outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonja Christopher

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

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

The subject of this article is known for one thing: lasting one episode of Survivor. That's not notable, and if it is, it is a WP:BLP1E. Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I wrote a longer article on her, but it was deleted. User Phaeton23 20:17, 30 May 2010
  • Indeed it was. AfD here.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the appropriate season (Survivor: Borneo in this case). We have a list of contestants there. Buddy431 (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO, as a wikipedia editor/lover/survivor fan, I think every contestant should have a page and a picture so when someone goes back years later, they will have a face and description to jog their memory of the person. This show was one of the highest rated ever, and it still going strong after 20 seasons. User Phaeton23 23:32, 31 May 2010
    • Consider reading WP:ILIKEIT. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That whole article has RELIABLE links, so that link you left=void. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaeton23 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 6 June 2010
        • My point was that you seem to want the article to stay simply because you like it. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The reason I like this article is because I really hunted around to find info about her, only to have somebody call her bio "not notable" and delete all the info I found on her. This article was much longer, and it was long enough to be a stub. There are plenty of pages that are not even as long as this one is now and they still exist. I just feel that deleting this is calling the kettle black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaeton23 (talk • contribs)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Survivor: Borneo as Buddy431 has suggested. What little trivia exists could be added at the Contestants section there. Location (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I agree that not EVERY Survivor contestant deserves their own article, this person is very notable for being the very first person voted off of the series.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. -- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 03:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Survivor: Borneo to preserve the history. The current information can easily be included in the main article and it leaves the option to expand the article later. Movementarian (Talk) 16:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She gets plenty of news coverage for her time on Survivor, as well as breast cancer awareness, and her other accomplishments. More could be added to this article. I'll go do a bit of work on it now. Dream Focus 02:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find significant coverage of her other accomplishments (eg cancer awareness) I'd be more than happy to reconsider this nomination. I've found though that coverage of these accomplishments appears incidental to coverage of her Survivor involvement, in an "oh and by the way" fashion. But coverage like this seems promising.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP1E. This person is known only for one notable event. WP policy clearly tells us that such a person does not deserve their own article. SnottyWong talk 18:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Media coverage does [not] appear to be significant.--PinkBull 07:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable for age and media coverage surely. Even in Australia. She is known internationally. AWHS (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sufficiently notable to keep, though not a home run subject. Otherwise redirect to Survivor: Borneo. Consensus seems to favor a keep after prior relisting. Its not unusual for deleted Survivor articles to get recreated and stay, I looked into this once, its happened many times.--Milowent (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- game show contestants are not automatically notable, particularly unsuccessful ones, and the coverage does not appear to me to be sufficient. Reyk _YO! 02:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Survivor article. The information about other activities does not assert that she is notable for these activities. There is the article from the Lodi News-Sentinel, but I don't imagine that's sufficient. Being first to be voted off is trivia that can be added to the main Survivor article and the season article. - BalthCat (talk) 00:50, 21 June 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 Deenanath_Mangeshkar. (unless a better target can be found). The "Delete" commenters are correct that there is no significant sourcing - passing mentions etc. In a BLP this is clearly important. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meena Mangeshkar

Meena Mangeshkar (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)

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. Have found a few pieces that mention her but are primarily about someone else, in two of the three articles one of her sisters. Does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 21:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 21:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 21:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have sourced the article now. She was notable on her own right - Sung a number of songs for major Bollywood films and composed music for a few Marathi films. This taken together meets WP:MUSICBIO (specifically #2, through her song for Mother India). Online coverage is thin because she has always been overshadowed by her more popular sisters. Though the coverage on the Mangeshkar clan mostly focuses on Lata and Asha, it gives enough information to establish Meena's notability. The references i have added describe her variously as "singer on her own right", "iilustrious", "came to dominate playback singing" etc; Also note that she was in the peak of her career in the 50s and 60s, so more detailed offline coverage - Hindi, English and Marathi - most certainly exists.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources given are all trivial mentions in articles about Lata Mangeshkar except for Maharashtra: birthplace of Indian film industry, which mentions one film she worked on. Let's not pseudo-source an article. Hekerui (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, the sources do support some of the statements in the article. There are three major claims in the article : a) she belongs to Mangeshkar family b)she sang some songs c) she composed music for some films. If the sources about Lata, do mention these facts about Meena, what is wrong in using them as sources?. I have used the first four sources to establish a)she is a singer b) she belongs to Mangeshkar family. The fifth ref is for her work in Marathi films. How does this become pseudo sourcing?--Sodabottle (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that the sources added to the article establish a) she belongs to Mangeshkar family b)she sang some songs c) she composed music for some films, but I don't see how they establish notability. They certainly don't show that the subject meets criterion 2 of WP:MUSICBIO which says the subject has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. I just don't see how she meets WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage and significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. J04n(talk page) 13:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The song Duniya Main Hum Aaye Hain in Mother India (i have added a reference to the music review now) sung by her (along with her sisters) definitely qualifies as a single in India's national music chart (though there isnt a single music chart for India, this is a film that ranks no 3 in all time box office hits, thus it can be taken as an equivalent). Thus MUSICBIO is met. And i never said the references meet GNG, only that offline coverage from the 50s and 60s surely must exist.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - For the same reasons as above. Shivashree (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per J04n - no criterion of WP:MUSICBIO and no significant coverage, and notability is not conferred from relatives. Hekerui (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per J04n --Epeefleche (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Deenanath Mangeshkar, unless non-trivial mentions are found in reliable sources. I think non-online Marathi-language sources about Meena Mangeshkar might exist. utcursch | talk 08:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:55, 13 June 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 Xcode. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Xcode

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

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

Tagged for inappropriate style since 2007. This article is essentially a changelog and presents information as minor as a bugfix release dates. Some of the content may be integrated into Xcode. A separate article doesn't seem justified. Don Cuan (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I originally created this article by splitting it out from the main Xcode article. Thank you for notifying me about the AfD. Now that I've seen your AfD nomination, I've removed perhaps half or more of the list items, then converted the article from list form into prose form. --unforgettableid | talk 22:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge into Xcode. I think it's always nice for Wikipedia to have history-of-software articles. I think it'd be best to keep this article: it's still a bit too long to merge into Xcode, since Xcode is a pretty short article. --unforgettableid | talk 22:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Change logs are part of the sum of human knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.172.92.157 (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

This editor has been blocked for disruptive editing at several AFD's. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per above - not seeing a rationale for outright deletion. Artw (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to XCode. Verbal chat 12:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy merge (is that possible?) to XCode. The parent article is nowhere near long enough to justify spin-off articles. SnottyWong ^speak 23:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Xcode- and when I say "merge" I don't mean "lazy copy & dump". As it stands, 90% of this article is in violation of WP:NOTDIR and WP:TRIVIA, being in essence a databse of mostly trivial changes to a piece of software. I recognize though that some of the major revisions to the software might be appropriate in the Xcode article. Reyk _YO! 04:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't know why anyone would need to look up the release dates and what was released for each version, buts it here if they need it, and no way they'd find it if they weren't looking for it. Most sites keep track of this information on their official webpages though. Dream Focus 06:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: Real merge. If the list of release dates is merged into the Xcode article, it could be hidden with a show/hide box to reduce the impact on that article. What remains could probably be merged into Xcode without bloating that article. - BalthCat (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• smerge don't need an total list of every single release... wikipedia is not a directory... just summarize the major milestones and put it in the main articleArskwad (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge should be a no-brainer here. FWIW I reckon that enough coverage exists for this to eventually be split back out, but it doesn't warrant its own article right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:10, 21 June 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) 02:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Mena

Henry Mena (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. The independent, secondary coverage of this musician that I can find is limited to a passing reference in this article [20] There's a variety of self-published sources available on web search, but I just don't see the base of reliable, secondary independent sources necessary to write any sort of biography. Joe Decker (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't find the significant coverage in reliable sources that would be necessary to satisfy WP:BIO. I don't think this musician passes any of the criteria spelled out on WP:MUSICBIO, as his albums were released by his (non-major) label and I see no evidence that his music charted. If someone can find references to the contrary, I'd be happy to reconsider. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this musician's BLP. Another person with the same name was a notorious criminal and defendant from Texas. Bearian (talk) 22:50, 15 June 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) 02:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loni maratha Kunabi

Loni maratha Kunabi (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)

"Indian Community" which does not meet WP:N. It's verifiable through Google that it exists, but there's no clear indication that the article is anything other than original research. Claritas § 07:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete could not find significant coverage by independent reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this community. Joe Chill (talk) 00:45, 14 June 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) 02:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arrivals – TV Series

The Arrivals – TV Series (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 does not meet the notability criteria. Seems like a web project according to the references given, and a quick check on google wasn't indicative. Dengero (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. The press release indicates that no episodes have yet aired on any television station, channel, or network. At this point, the series is a web-published program with no claim to notability. If the program airs nationally (anywhere), it can be recreated later without prejudice. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice toward recreation if and when this airs and gets coverage. For now it is a bit too soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:01, 15 June 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) 02:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Casts

Shadow Casts (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 quick check on google doesn't indicate the content in the article is true. Possible hoax or a definition came up by the author? Dengero (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Kids acting out plots from movies they like is not unheard of. It just is not something written about in the news often and I have never heard of the phrase "shadow casts." --Fartherred (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. --Fartherred (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Another editor removed this debate from the list of language-related deletion discussions. --Fartherred (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is neither asserted nor shown. Edward321 (talk) 23:43, 15 June 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.