Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 8 December 10 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 17:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mid Continental Football League

[edit]
Mid Continental Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-professional league of questionable notability. Google News search on the name brings back no results. Very little coverage found in in indepedent publications. Major contributor appears to have a significant conflict of interest. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question If this page is deleted, should not also we delete 2008 Mid Continental Football League season, or will it require its own AFD? Or could it be speedied?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That SI page appears to primarily a page of links to YouTube videos and a wiki article - none of them appear to have been uploaded/created by Sports Illustrated, however. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. But further Googling turned up a few newspaper stories, I think this is notable enough for inclusion. Changed to keep from weak. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one and this one appear to have been from a reader's blog, not from a staff writer - here's the author's Blogger profile, and this page at the paper shows that they run reader submissions - the blog in questioned ended three years ago, so it's apparently no longer indexed on the site's search function. The ThisWeek article is more about a player and team - the only mention of the league is very fleeting. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What independent sources are you referring to? The article has two external links to primary sources - the league website and message board. You only added a link to semiprofootball.org last night, and that's nothing more than a minor list from a related site. You have yet to show any significant coverage from independent sources. The problem is we understand the league exists, but there is nothing to be found that shows it to be notable enough to need an article. This is an encyclopedia, not a yellow pages ad. If there were articles about the league accomplishing things over and above (or even up to the level of) other leagues with real coverage, or showing it has a notable past, we would welcome the article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't believe I'm saying this in an AFD... but Wikipedia is not about WP:EVERYTHING. Just because it exists does not mean it deserves an article. My fingernail exists, it doesn't get an article. However, an article on fingernails is okay. While I'm sure that the league is more notable than my fingernail, it isn't nearly enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Please try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see the arguments on both sides, but the I don't find the arguments to delete particularly convincing. -Drdisque (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Just came back to visit this page and can't beleive that there are people calling for keep. Just to point out all the violations, read the list below.

  1. Several counts of violation of WP:GROUP including the following: Primary Criteria (Depth of coverage, Audience, and independence of sources); Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations (Non-commercial organizations)
  2. Multiple violations of WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought (Primary research and Journalism); Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion (Advocacy, Self-promotion, and borderline Advertising); Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site; and Wikipedia is not a directory (A complete exposition of all possible details).
  3. Major violations of WP:OR: Citing oneself ("...this policy does prohibit experts from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources.");
  4. What about WP:RS the only sources cited are the organization's website (which, incidentally is down at the moment) and a discussion board--in other words, it's not just that the page contains original research (above), it is the only information contained!
  5. Don't forget WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" and "Independent of the subject" come to mind.

In short, we're talking policy and major guideline violations here folks!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing the nomination on behalf of the subject (off-wiki request). Mkativerata (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Howe

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

The subject of the article requests its deletion. I am neutral, but I would point out that this little-watched article was subject to defamation so bad that it had to be oversighted. Mkativerata (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 23:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Del Cerro, San Diego, California

[edit]
Del Cerro, San Diego, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources listed in the article demonstrate any notability for this neighborhood outside of the context of San Diego, the city. We need not have individual articles on every named neighborhood of San Diego just because some of them may be notable; this one appears to be rather unremarkable in all respects. Powers T 21:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - It dopes not seem to be in any way unremarkable, but just another suburban-ish development. There is information worth keeping, and it is cited, but it seems to be part of the larger Navajo, San Diego, California area. Merger is the usual result for such things, rather than deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Del Cerro is a well established and well known neighborhood of San Diego, recognized by the city [1] and often reported on in the local paper. You need more sources? OK, I added some. But Del Cerro is a notable neighborhood and should be kept. (And who says a neighborhood has to be notable "outside of the context of San Diego"? Notability is notability; there's no requirement that it has to be famous nationwide; only that it receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources - in this case including the regional papers San Diego Union Tribune and San Diego Daily Transcript.) BTW about "Navajo": the city lumps Del Cerro, San Carlos, Grantville and Allied Gardens together for planning purposes into an area they call Navajo, but Navajo is purely an administrative concept - not a recognized community like Del Cerro and the others. You'll never hear someone say they live in "Navajo", or see the newspaper report that a crime happened in "the Navajo neighborhood" - they will always say Del Cerro, San Carlos, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Officially recognized neighborhood of a major city, with plenty of references. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 07:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your criticism of the references. At least three of them are full-length news stories from the San Diego Union-Tribune about issues involving the Del Cerro neighborhood. --MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see you added some since I made the nomination. However, I still maintain that local news coverage does not equate to extensive coverage in third-party sources -- not for purposes of WP:N, at least. Powers T 22:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The image is on the Commons, so nothing we can do about that. Courcelles 11:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nyce

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

This rapper may be signed to G-Unit Records but has not released any music that has ever charted. This article has existed over three years, and only references are artist's website and myspace. Zero independent coverage, fails WP:MUSIC. Karppinen (talk) 20:47, 9 December 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 A9; non-notable recording by non-notable artist, and its cover is therefore irrelevant Rodhullandemu 23:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zip Zap Rap

[edit]
Zip Zap Rap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This record may have an amusing album cover, but it never achieved enough notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Karppinen (talk) 20:23, 9 December 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Archaeology

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

unreferenced essay, totally non encyclopedic WuhWuzDat 19:06, 9 December 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melodic Intonation Therapy for Broca's Aphasia: Neuronal Basis

[edit]
Melodic Intonation Therapy for Broca's Aphasia: Neuronal Basis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research. Somebody took a term paper and pasted it into an article. The article itself states "The rationale, efficacy, and possible mechanisms of MIT will be addressed in this paper.". I'm noticing a lot of these lately. Maybe we should start directing people to SSRN. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 18:42, 9 December 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Price Is Right broadcast history

[edit]
The Price Is Right broadcast history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Orphan article, WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and appropriate broadcast info is covered already in The Price Is Right (U.S. game show)#Broadcast history and The Price Is Right (1956 U.S. game show)#History. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:32, 9 December 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 Anyone smell socks? Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bayview-Hunters Point, San Francisco

[edit]
Bayview-Hunters Point, San Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, not verified, not reliable sources Lapikatepika (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC) — Lapikatepika (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Speedy Keep/Close - This WP:VAGUEWAVE afd is the nom/screen name's very first edit and appears to be some form of disruption (extremely notable San Francisco neighborhood). I suspect this is the work of a sock as it's unlikely a brand newbie could so seamlessly create an afd with familiar WP editing terminology in one edit (go ahead and throw the bad faith accusations. I'd be happy if the nom's actions were scrutinized, not to mention a check-user be done).--Oakshade (talk) 03:06, 9 December 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. The consensus is that both lists should be kept -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of X American actors

[edit]
(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)

I'm re-nominating this list because it seems attitudes have changed since its first nomination, and because the first nomination had only a few participants. The reason remains the same. This is an irrelevant intersection with a very vague, very open criteria for inclusion and ends up being little more than a never-ending WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:V-violation magnet. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors for precedent.) Bulldog123 03:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • AfD History - (Hopefully a fair summary) - This began as a nomination of List of Irish American actors. Following discussion below, List of Italian American actors was added to the AfD at a later stage and the name of the AfD changed. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List of Irish American Actors - Even a cursory search (link) reveals that "Irish American actor" is a term that people use and have discussion about, so the intersection is non-trivial. Issues about the scope of the list and who does or does not belong on it are for the list's talk page; AfD is not for shortcutting inconvenient arguments or for clean-up. Also, I'm unaware of any significant change in policy or community opinion since the last AfD resulted in an overwhelming Keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the search I mean, yes, although I'm referring to the links further down that list. If you're honestly debating that "Irish American actor" is a term commonly used in casual, professional and critical literature then I'll find you specific sources but I wouldn't have thought there was any serious debate about that. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you looking at the same search you just linked to? I see the phrase being used in around 99,000 results, including such books as "Making the Irish American: history and heritage of the Irish in the United States", "Historical dictionary of Irish cinema", "Looking for Jimmy: A search for Irish America", "Beyond the Notion of Race", "The Irish-American Family Album", "Ireland and the Americas: Culture, Politics and History", "Screening Irish-America" and "A Companion To 20th Century American Drama". I could go on but three sources is generally a good guideline for notability and I'm already at eight. There's obviously a significant academic discussion of the contribution of Irish Americans to American culture through the medium of acting. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything you listed is great material for Irish Americans and Irish cinema. But no, I don't see the part where those links provide material for an obvious "academic discussion of the contribution of Irish Americans to American culture through the medium of acting." You're also making it seem like this list is a prose article when it's just an indiscriminate trivia list. Take a quick scan of the entries. For example, check the Julia Styles link: [2]. All it says is: "Her mother (half English, half Italian) makes ceramic pots, her dad (Irish) sells them." What does that sidebar remark have to do with an academic discussion of Irish American contribution to cinema through acting? Half the list is like that. Bulldog123 05:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're confusing content and topic again. If there are things on the list that are trivial or don't belong, they can be deleted directly per the usual practice of edit-revert-discuss. This discussion is whether the list itself should be deleted, not some portion of its content. And I'll once again direct you to the following sources and their content summaries (these are back-of-book summaries, not quotes from inside, as the interior coverage is extensive, and they're just two of a great many similar books):
Screening Irish-America, "Screening Irish-America is a major work in Irish-American screen studies. [...] [T]he book contains contributions by leading scholars in the field. Topics include John Ford, the Irish-American gangster, Irish-American stars and the representation of the Scots-Irish and religion."
Bowery to Broadway: The American Irish in Classic Hollywood Cinema, "James Cagney's 1931 portrayal of the Irish American gangster, Tommy Powers, set the standard for the Hollywood gangster and helped to launch a golden age of Irish American cinema. In the years that followed several of the era's greatest stars, such as Spencer Tracy, Bing Crosby, Pat O'Brien, and Ginger Rogers, assumed Irish American roles as boxers, entertainers, priests, and working girls, delighting audiences and at the same time providing a fresh perspective of the Irish American experience."
I can't see any rational reason for disputing that there's significant coverage of this sufficient to declare it a non-trivial intersection. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object. They raise different issues, being one that's reasonably similar to this (Italian American), one that's on the basis entirely of race rather than race/nationality pairing (Native American), and one that deals with a profession that is either entirely different or a subset of "actor", depending on how you see it (African-American pornographic actors). Plus I have a longstanding concern that mass AfDs encourage a poorer standard of scrutiny. Argue this one, and then if you get a consensus use it to make the next one go faster. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALSO - sorry for double posts - but I think there's value in letting this one run as a test case, as in AfDs that include the words "Jewish", or "African-American" you inevitably get someone thinking someone else is being racist. I don't think passions about Irish Americans run quite that high so it might be a good chance to get the underlying logic locked down without things getting out of hand. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep list of Italian-American actors for the same reasons as the Irish-American list, being that the intersection is the subject of significant discussion in reliable sources, mostly in the context of the establishment of the unique cultural identity of "Italian-American". - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck my "delete" above, because I'm vacillating. Now I'm starting to think DustFormsWords might be right here after all.—S Marshall T/C 13:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Consider that "List of African American actors" would obviously be of interest, as would one of Native American actors, because that would be an important part of the history of these minority groups and would be important information on how they have been viewed by the majority. There is no reason not to treat the Irish and Italian Americans the same. They also have important histories as distinct minority groups in America. On the other hand a list of, for instance, Ukrainian American actors would indeed be a intersection of unrelated qualifications. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I picked the Ukraine as a country which probably does not have too many immigrants to America, maybe I should have picked some other place. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, but you're not proving why a list of any individual with Irish or Italian ancestry relates to scholarly or academic sources. For that matter, where are these sources that define "Italian American actor" and "Irish American actor" as a relevant intersection: [3]? The closest one I could find is: [4]. Is this all we rely on? A few sections of a book that's otherwise devoted to filmmaking and not "acting?" Bulldog123 21:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are those I provided above. There are a great deal more but I'm disinclined to do the work until you make some explanation of what's wrong with the ones I've already mentioned. In theory, there would be no reason we could not have a list of Ukranian-American actors, provided that it could be demonstrated there had been significant discussion of the topic. The relationship between "academic study" and "the value of a list" is discussed at WP:LISTPURP, being that once a topic is shown as being the subject of significant discussion (and therefore notable), a list of articles related to that topic provides value to users interested in that topic for the purposes of information and navigation. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes, we do actually create lists for exactly that reason. Or rather, others create such lists on that basis; you never have. While we're getting personal here, as you have, you haven't created much of anything here, so I'm not sure what your basis is for understanding these issues or for thinking you can school others on them, particularly someone like Alansohn who has created more articles than you have article space edits. Aggressively trying to delete these lists seems to be most of what you do here, and such an agenda is not a good basis for understanding article creation or community consensus on these issues. postdlf (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, I'd say participating in AfDs and CfDs helps a user learn more about policy than making random articles. Secondly, I admit I spend most of my edits on wikipedia deleting indiscriminate categories and lists. If users like me didn't exist, this encyclopedia would be a cesspool of trivia. I wish there was a log to show all the material I saved you from. Bulldog123 00:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case Bulldog doesn't need to defend himself; an ad hominem attack has no value here, as Bulldog hasn't appealed to his own experience or authority in making his arguments. Either his arguments are persuasive or they aren't, and his editing history has nothing to say one way or the other to that. - DustFormsWords (talk)
  • Agree in part and disagree in part w/Dust. An editor's editing history can certainly be of moment in certain instances, without being an ad hominem attack but rather a remark as to the weight of their editing. An example is our template allowing editors to point out if another editor is an SPA -- that is focused entirely on editing history. Also, I would think that if an editor has a long history of bringing AfDs that don't reflect wp:before searches, or consensus, that is also reasonable fodder for discussion. That said, as Dust points out one can simply look at Bull's comments at this AfD (and the article, and the comments of others) to form one's opinion of them, and whether they are persuasive or not; nothing more is required, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both lists as encyclopedic indexes of article subjects, on top of the intersections being notable in their own right. If instead the inclusion criteria of who qualifies as Irish American or Italian American is the nominator's problem, then those lists should be discussed as a whole; the entire structure of such lists should be listed for deletion or (my preference) discussed in an RFC. Such issues are in no way particular to these two lists, and it makes zero sense to delete these lists as long as any lists of Irish Americans or Italian Americans exist, because subdividing them by occupation is a completely sensible way to organize them, especially where that ethnic group's history in a particular occupation has been noted. postdlf (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (both). The intersection is indeed a notable one, with entire books written about it (as in the 2005 book Hollywood Italians), as nom would have known had he performed a wp:before search. This is now reflected summarily in the intros of each list; google searches of course yield far more in the regard. Issues he may have with inclusion criteria are appropriate for him to raise at the respective talk pages, but not reason for deletion. Nor is being a magnet for controversy; if that were reason for deletion, we would delete the wikipedia articles on abortion, Hamas, and everyone named George Bush.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're referring to Dust's source here, you must have not looked through it very carefully. Once again, it's a book devoted exclusively to portrayal of Irish Americans in American cinema. It does briefly mention that some Irish American actors play those roles (i.e., James Cagney), and that's fine... but please explain what you plan on doing for the rest of the individuals on this list - the ones who don't portray Irish Americans. Prune them? Also, you're repeating that George Bush/Hamas analogy even though it didn't make any sense the first time. Nobody is saying "delete everything that's controversial." George Bush and Hamas are heated articles but they're not magnets for dubiously sourced entries and BLP violations because they are not indiscriminate lists of people. Bulldog123 07:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion of why Irish-American actors aren't used to play Irish-Americans is as relevant to their notability as discussion of when they are. There is no reason that notability of Irish-American screen actors doesn't establish notability of Irish-American actors generally, given that screen acting is the highest paid level of acting, in exactly the same way that a "List of American writers" would not suffer for only including American published writers. Although I'd be surprised if notability for stage actors couldn't also be found. A further source is here:
America on film: representing race, class gender and sexuality at the movies Beginning at page 58, a chapter entitled "Bleaching the Green: The Irish in American Cinema" discusses at length Irish-American characters and the Irish-American actors who do or don't play them, providing a history of the work opportunities for Irish-American actors over time.
Actually, that source is a fascinating read, particularly about the way Irish-American actors positioned themselves in opposition to African-American actors, and dealt with the sterotypical and racist roles they were being given playing defined Irish "types". - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, I don't disagree with you that it's an interesting read. I love history, especially the history of cinema. That's why I would actually support all these lists to be removed and instead replaced by Portrayals of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity in Cinema - or something along those lines. Hell, I'll even start the article if there's support for it... but you're constantly skirting the issue here. I want to know what Demi Lovato, Abigail Breslin, Rosie O'Donnell, Christian Slater all have to do with the fact that in the 1940s QUOTE "Gene Kelly had often played overtly Irish American characters, but by the 1950s, his characters were considered simply American" END QUOTE. And if you agree that the answer is "nothing," then you (and all other !keep voters) have two options: re-vamp the list to include only people like Gene Kelly (with a note for why he's being listed as an Irish American actor) OR delete the list (and all lists like it) and make a prose article on the subject (as suggested). There is no third option that doesn't make this an irrelevant intersection - which you all stress it isn't. The re-vamping option is acceptable, but it's going to cause a lot of problems with users who simply "won't understand" why they can't add their favorite actor despite him being of Irish/Italian/whatever descent. Bulldog123 10:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not unless they want to come across as disingenuous to their earlier points. Then, yes, the third option is just "keep as is" - but of course that throws out the window all the "backed by reliable sources proving intersection blah blah blah" stuff. Can't have your cake and eat it, so to speak. Bulldog123 21:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again - and I don't know how many times I have to say this - content has nothing to do with AfD. The list could be filled with the names of Smurfs, and it would be still be kept because the TOPIC is allowable, and AfD is not for cleanup. If the list were populated with Smurfs, the appropriate process is to close the AfD as Keep, and then immediately purge the list of uncontroversially irrelevant entries, add at least one relevant entry, and then discuss the remainder on the talk page. AfD only cares about the potential of the page, not its current state. From WP:BEFORE: "[P]lease consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Emphasis in original.- DustFormsWords (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy you bring that up. So you admit that what you're requesting is a complete re-vamping of the article, right? Adding entries based on their relationship to "Irish American cinema" and not merely "because they have Irish heritage" - which would prune 90% of the list as it is. By adding information about why they are listed as Irish Americans, this list becomes more of a prose article, based on their relationship to Irish/Italian Americans in cinema. Now please explain why it's easier to keep this list instead of just deleting it and starting over (with a more specific title). If you don't agree with any of what I said, you just went back on your entire point. By the way, a List of Irish American actors containing smurfs would be viable for AfD (because clearly the list is not clear enough as to its inclusion criteria) -- I don't know what the heck you're talking about. Bulldog123 01:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not requesting any change to the list. I'm perfectly happy to leave it as it is. I'm saying that if you have a problem with the content, it has nothing to do with the AfD. You can take that up on the list's talk page, after the AfD closes, or begin building consensus for it now so it's ready to implement after we close as Keep. In your hypothetical, a List of Irish American actors containing smurfs would NOT have a problem with its inclusion criteria, it would have a problem with its content, being content that did not meet the inclusion criteria. Wikipedia has absolutely no difficulty in defining "Irish", "American", "Irish-American" or "actor", either separately or in combination, and we do it the same way we define everything else - by reference to reliable sources. Where sources don't agree we present all notable viewpoints. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm perfectly happy to leave it as it is Great, so you admit that it is an indiscriminate list that simply includes anyone with Irish heritage and who is an actor -- and has no connection, as far as we can see, to the sources you keep touting above (about how Gene Kelly was pigeonholed into Irish American roles, etc.. etc...). Perfect. When are you going to change your !vote to delete then? Bulldog123 04:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, I'm reasonably happy that everyone except you understands my argument. It's disappointing that you can't get your head around it, and will probably keep mis-nominating lists as a result (which isn't to say you don't often make good nominations, in with the bad) but at the point where you're putting words in my mouth it stops being a mature discussion and there doesn't seem a lot of return to be had on continuing it. If anyone other than Bulldog remains confused as to any of my points, please feel free to question them, but I'm otherwise leaving the argument here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's easy to get crickets when you ask an empty room. It's also easy to get crickets from people who simply can't follow this conversation anymore. No, I admit I don't understand your argument because it seems to change a lot. You just said "I'm not requesting any changes to the list." Did you not? Although earlier your entire point was "There is a connection between Italian/Irish Americans and acting." You pointed to sources showing how people like Gene Kelly were pigeonholed into Irish American roles. I agree that seems reasonably notable, and it's possible that - in that case - Gene Kelly could be considered an "Irish American actor" (though it is kind of WP:WEIGHTy) it just doesn't apply to everyone. Yet... here you say you don't advocate removing anyone. Can you understand how that doesn't make sense? How is Demi Lovato and Gene Kelly both equally "Irish American actors?" Bulldog123 23:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable intersection, violates BLP and list policies. These lists should not exist in an encyclopedia. If you want to write about the influence of an ethnicity/religion on something, write a sourced prose article. I have asked this before, what is the purpose of having a list of names (there's nothing else here) classified by ethnicity, and/or religion?--Therexbanner (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These arguments seem entirely fallacious to me. The purpose is navigational, intended to help readers find related topics. Categories, lists and navigational templates are encyclopaedic for the same reason that paper encyclopaedias have indices and tables of contents. DustFormsWords and Postdlf have shown that the intersection is notable by linking to some of the reliable sources that have noted it. There is no BLP violation because it's not "negative information" to call someone Italian American or Irish American. And finally, there is no list policy against it.

    Having said all that, I'm still not entirely convinced that it's a good idea to pigeonhole people by ethnicity on Wikipedia. If we are going to, then I certainly don't understand why it's so important to keep list of Irish American actors when we don't have a list of Irish actors. We're inadvertently treating "Irish American" as more important or relevant than "Irish". In short, I'm concerned about the systemic bias issue.—S Marshall T/C 17:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing in common with the alphabetical listing/index used by an encyclopedia and these "navigational" lists.
Show me a real encyclopedia that labels people by ethnicity or religion, when it has nothing to do with their notability.
In regards to the "negative information" point, I strongly disagree. I wouldn't want people/articles labelling my ethnicity, or religion based on "sources". It often can be offensive to label people as part of an ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation that they do not want to be associated with.
Some information like citizenship is more objective, but when dealing with ethnicity/religion/orientation having a source is not enough. (Which is why guidelines state that these things should be left out, unless they are important to the subjects activities.)
In relation to ethnicity, there is absolutely no way to determine that unless the person self-identifies as X. Claiming someone is ethnically X, would require tracing the genealogical tree of the person for generations, and then calculating the relative percentage of inter-mixing.--Therexbanner (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments aren't well tailored to the results you want. Excluding those for whom their ethnicity was not important to "the subject's activities" does not justify the outright deletion of these lists, only the removal of certain entries. Further, in many instances, the notable people will be verifiably the children of immigrants if not immigrants themselves, so once again if the claimed ethnicity is too attenuated, such as a single great-great-great ancestor (a concern for which I am sympathetic) then that again is a good argument for removing individual entries rather than removing all entries that are considerably less trivial. On the other hand, if you don't think ethnicity should be documented in any case, well, that's interesting, but far from any consensus view of the topic, and such a blanket prohibition on certain information will only hinder Wikipedia's coverage for benefits that I am unable to discern. Even if we presume that ethnicity is a negative fact in some instances, the BLP problem is cured by proper sourcing and explanation, not by removal where it is verifiable (not to mention for those who personally identify as X-Americans and so obviously do not take "offense").

@S Marshall: There is Category:Irish actors. As to why there isn't a corresponding list, there's no good reason and so we should presume that eventually one will be made. There are plenty of other lists of actors by nationality indexed at List of actors. postdlf (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support identifying those people who's ethnicity/religion/orientation is not important to their activities, and removing them from these lists?
With proper sources, I think that would solve the policy/guideline issues. --Therexbanner (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that the lists can be fixed with editing, even if that editing doesn't happen we need to take you off the "delete" column.

I think a better, more clear threshold issue is to make sure first that the lists only include those for whom the ethnicity is significant, which would require explaining in the list what the basis is for declaring that to be part of their ethnic heritage (not simply providing a citation). Most entries don't do that. And I think it would be easier to establish some general rules for that issue than a rule to figure out whose ethnicity was relevant to their career. Certainly when it comes to something like acting, which involves casting and the depictions of different "types" of people, I believe it's a reasonable presumption that those with a strong ethnic identity had it affect their career in some way. And those effects could be diverse: an Italian-American could say "I always got typecast as a mobster" or "I was surprised I didn't get typecast as a mobster" and either way the intersection would be relevant. I would eventually like to see all entries annotated as to those effects, and maybe then once the lists are developed in that way those entries that both have little to go on for a claim of ethnic heritage, and/or nothing to say about how that ethnicity affected their career, could be dropped off. But that's a process that calls for the scalpel of editing, not the wrecking ball of deletion. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better, more clear threshold issue is to make sure first that the lists only include those for whom the ethnicity is significant, which would require explaining in the list what the basis is for declaring that to be part of their ethnic heritage (not simply providing a citation). I'm glad you mentioned that. You do know that's not this list and that has never been this list. What you're asking for is something completely different and the people regularly editing this list are not going to be willing to make such a drastic change merely because a few individuals said so in the AfD. In other words, your view appears to be a delete view, yet you're demanding a keep. Bulldog123 00:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. First, I don't think the list is delete worthy in its current state, because it's a valid list topic and its content would not need a complete rewrite for it to be at all valid. Second, I don't think (and consensus tends to agree with me on this) that room for improvement in a list or prose article is grounds for deletion. If you do, then that rather throws into question just what your deletion !votes mean, if "delete" in your interpretation can include "needs a lot of work." Your comment implies that if the list were further developed in the ways that I have suggested, that you would at least find it significantly less objectionable. I don't know that these improvements will ever happen, but I have no reason to believe that they won't. I assume good faith on the part of the current and future editors of this list. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you don't think the list is delete-worthy in its current state, then we're still not on the same wavelength. Further developed to the point of completely changing, yes.... and further developed to the point where it's more an article than a list. I also don't think the title works, as it would be too misleading. But the point is that this list and lists like it (the X-American lists) have been contested for years and years and years. There has been no progress with them. You can assume good faith on the part of the current and future editors, but it's blind faith, and not because they are all "agenda-driven," but because there's no way to go about this without resorting to some kind of original research. You say, I don't know that these improvements will ever happen, and your prediction is correct. They won't because they can't without significant original research. In a few years, this AfD and ones like it will pop back up and we'll have a new batch of users making the same arguments you all are now. An endless cycle that could have been stopped today. Bulldog123 03:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both per sources discussed in DustFormsWords post of 05:04 on 6 December way up at the top of this debate. I don't know of a significant American ethnic identity whose contributions to the arts, sciences, or humanities haven't been discussed in multiple works, and these two certainly have been. Comparisons to a "real encyclopedia" are clearly against WP:NOTPAPER. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 01:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, here, here for a very superficial search. Let's also remember the underlying thought behind all of our notability guidelines - the vast majority of reliable sources are not available online, in English, and/or for free. If I can find this many in less than 10 minutes, we need to extrapolate how many we could find in an exhaustive search with access to them all. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 02:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding those three sources: This isn't an article about portrayals of Irish Americans in early American cinema/theatre. This isn't an article about Irish American filmmakers and their films (i.e., The Brothers McMullen via Edward Burns) and finally, this isn't a list of participants in Irish theatre - not even a reference to Irish Americans in that one link, btw. All your sources are for different lists and different articles. This list - is and always has been - since the very moment of its inception - a list of any American individual with Irish heritage who is an actor. That is the list up for AfD. Bulldog123 04:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first one specifically discusses the Irish heritage of the actors being responsible for the "three-dimensional nature of those characters"(p.49) , and the second discusses Ford's specific use of "Irish-born and Irish speaking Maureen O'Hara", unless she somehow doesn't qualify as an Irish American actor. The subjects of the articles at this AfD are Irish American actors and Italian American actors. The fact that each of them uses a list-based format and each uses the title style of "List of..." is irrelevant. Both of those are clearly notable topics. You are arguing that there are not reliable sources discussing Irish or Italian American actors as a specific topic, and that those topics are therefore not notable. This has been refuted by many others here. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 05:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your arguments are based on standards for categories, not lists (and indeed, if we were talking about a category, I would agree with you...look at this; I have agreed with you in the past). Unlike categories, adding an article to the list does not burden that article with a tag on the article (intersecting every occupation with every ethnicity would create a flood of mostly useless category tags on many bio articles), and the subdivision does not interfere with other lists or articles in the way that a subcategory of American astronauts by ethnicity would hinder category navigation by splitting up Category:American astronauts. And unlike categories, which can't explain varying degrees of inclusion, you can annotate and source why the individual is included and in what way the list's criteria is important, so you can see that, oh, Maureen O'Hara actually emigrated from Ireland, but Abigail Breslin is...unclear, maybe should be removed if it turns out she maybe just said in an interview that she thinks she may have had an Irish great-great-great-grandfather. But barring the completely trivial or the inapplicable, lists can tolerate some flexibility of inclusion criteria because of that ability to explain that categories completely lack, so readers and editors can see from a well developed list the relationship of the entry to the list's organizing concept. Incidentally, deleting lists such as these will only make it harder to get a consensus to delete the categories, which is completely counterproductive in my view.

    This is a list of articles, not a list of all Irish Americans who ever lived and who acted. And lists of articles index those articles by shared encyclopedic characteristics. It doesn't matter that the encyclopedic characteristic is not equally significant for all entries, so long as its inclusion to them is verifiable. You don't need to be able to say a paragraph on each one to justify the list as a whole. The fact is that these are real and notable ethnicities, and we have articles on notable people of those ethnicities, and this is a real and notable occupation.

    It's enough for me then to justify the intersection with acting to say we're just sublisting the list of people by ethnicity by occupation. A complete list of all articles of Irish Americans would probably be pretty long. But let's assume we start with that, and make it a sortable table with a column for occupation...and then the list gets too big, and it's split into numerous sublists, one structure of which would be organized...by the information in that original column for occupation. The purpose is navigation, the purpose is indexing articles, the purpose is aiding in article creation as those who are interested in, say, the experience of Italian Americans in cinema, a topic on which an article could certainly be written, would be greatly aided by a list of notable Italian American actors. Those are all long-recognized, valid purposes of lists.

    But the further fact that the distinct history and role of certain ethnicities in American acting has been the widespread subject of multiple reliable sources should remove any doubt that these lists' criteria are encyclopedic. Multiple reliable sources do intersect these ethnicities by this occupation. Which means that the intersection is not only encyclopedic but notable, and so even for those few who don't recognize the pure indexing, navigational function of lists, that justifies using it as the basis for a list of articles we have that match that criteria. Even if we cannot write a paragraph on its significance for each entry.

    And yes, I do think these lists, and others like them, could be developed a great deal more. Which goes back to my comment above, that room for improvement is never grounds for deletion. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List_of_Transformers:_Cybertron_characters#Recon_Mini-Con_Team. Courcelles 11:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recon Team

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

This article has no third person sources to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:37, 8 December 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. This time we'll try some salt with our Champagne. Courcelles 10:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Tollerman

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Nigel Tollerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person of VERY questionable notability, (as established in the first AFD for him) Most references are "in passing" and do not meet WP:GNG as they don't constitute significant, in-depth, independent coverage for this subject. WuhWuzDat 17:39, 9 December 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. There is a very clear consensus to delete, by reference to the organisation's lack of significant enough coverage in reliable sources to meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:GNG and WP:ORG). Mkativerata (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Order of the Rosicrucians

[edit]
Ancient Order of the Rosicrucians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, organization does not appear to be notable. There is only one citation, and it to the organization's website. There are no third-party sources. Editors with an apparent conflict of interest continue to add promotional links (links to promotional pages for books, tarots decks, etc. produced by the org) and material to the article. This seems to simply be an advert for a non-notable organization and its products. Yworo (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article because it is the leader of the organization who does not meet notability requirements for people:

Elias Rubenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This entry has been notable for at least 5 years. There are no promotional links, since it is a nonprofit organziation. The only reason for this deletion discussion is a conflict of interest by another Rosicrucian Organization (view the history on the BOTA Site) Yworo deleted there intersting information tody Mentor rc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I have nothing to do with any Rosicrucian organization. I was simply implementing Wikipedia standards on sourcing and external linking. Yworo (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
then you are probaly a hired Wikipedia(gun), we know how this works in certain Fraternal Organizations, see WikiLeaks as Reference Mentor rc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Paranoid much? I've been on Wikipedia for over a year and a half, and have little interest in this topic. I stumbled across the article when trying to clean up the article on Rosicrucianism, which had links to several non-notable organizations. I personally have no problem with this article being kept, if you can provide sufficient third-party sourcing to satisfy our notability requirements. The fact that this article has slipped through the cracks since 2006 doesn't make the organization notable. Yworo (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there is any third-party sourcing in the BOTA article....why not delete that aswell since you where cleaning up there too Mentor rc (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes i doubt!!!! that you are an independent Wikipedia Editor Mentor rc (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why doubt when you can go look? It's got a single third-party ref, a book by David Allen Hulse. I added a "refimprove" tag and we'll see if the regular editors can improve the referencing. In any case, "other stuff exists" is a well-known but meaningless argument around here. Yworo (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that book doesn't even have an ISBN!!!! any reference of that book? MentorRC (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes please I want a regular editor here not some hired Wikipedia(Gun), you should definatly put the BOTA Website as deletable aswell to prove your indepenency MentorRC (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you need to hire somebody who knows how to search Amazon. It's there, and it has an ISBN. I've supplied it and the full publication data. Maybe you should concentrate on finding references for your article. Yworo (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ohh my, you are really interested in that article, good boy!!! MentorRC (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It only took a few seconds at Google books to determine that BOTA is certainly notable, with mentions in at least 700 books. Of course, not all of them will be in-depth or reliable, but certainly the org is notable. Surprise me, show that AOR is notable rather than attacking your perceived competitor. Yworo (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Civil registry Number: ZVR-Zahl: 502344652 at (http://zvr.bmi.gv.at/) of the Order would be a legal public 3rd party reference Mentor rc (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This group is mentioned in Rosicrucianism as one of many modern Rosicrucian organizations. There is no reason to think they are as important as their own article seems to imply. Jaque Hammer (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's a schismatic offshoot from another Rosicrucian organization, which is part and parcel the only sure thing with all the mystical-type groups. The article indicates it has very little spread (and no presence in any English-speaking country). I also fail to see why someone would put a "secret society" on WP if it really was supposed to be secret. Therefore, it's advertising of a sort that asserts no notability. MSJapan (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
your contribution here within minutes since the existence of this deletion discussion would suggest that you are member of a secret scottish rite fraternal organization too and no indepentant 3rd party opinion source MentorRC (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
additional refernence can be found at the BOTA site: BOTA has a 'Masonic blue lodge system' MentorRC (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ok. So, first let's review the "general notability guideline"..."it is best treated with common sense,"... Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"...."Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity"

I am an American. I have never even been to Europe (I am sad to say). I came across this organization when I was doing some independent research on the way Christian Gnosticism has unraveled into contemporary forms in the modern world. I began my research with the teachings of Simon Magus, then to Saturninus and then all the way to the Cathars in the south of France. I was introduced to things like Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, and the occult sciences. I wanted to know the intricacies and differences of each. I eventually came across the term "Rosicrucianism" (a term I had never heard before). I was delighted to find out that there was such a wide variety of organizations that offered teachings on the topic. Even though I understood that many of them may not be legitimate or authentic, I wanted to be the one to decide which one had true credibility. I wanted to learn about all off shoots of modern Rosicrucianism. I wanted to discover the differences and various minutiae in each of their teachings. And so I did. I wanted to learn about more than just the larger organizations like the AMORC. I wanted to learn about lesser known mystics whose credibility may have been carelessly tainted by being likened to Aleister Crowley. I wanted to go the extra mile to find what was less common. To delete this article is to stymie the efforts of any individual with the same intellectual aspirations as I had.

This is not a popularity contest. It is information. The fact that this organization exists at all is enough to leave it in the public record via Wikipedia. Within the context of "modern Rosicrucian organizations" is where the article maintains its relevance, and therefore, is what makes it notable. View the third party article in Pulsar Magazine in March 2009. The order exists, and Elias Rubenstein is the grandmaster. The A.O.R. is a topic worthy of discussion. As to the quality of content of the A.O.R., that is for the reader to decide.

Furthermore, Wikiepedia is not a social networking site. There are much more effective ways to market a product or gain a greater level of notoriety within the social consciousness (ahem - facebook).ContributeUS (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC) — ContributeUS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikia is not a reliable source. Therefore its claim of notability means nothing. The article has not "been notable" here for 5 years. It's simply been overlooked and should have been deleted shortly after its creation. Yworo (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overlooked??? There is always a first check by an Administrator before an article goes online, and this article has quite an editing-history MentorRC (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should be given another year for improvement before deletion, it is obviously a living and growing organization that publishes books and promotes free sacred-texts on its website for public reading and education. I am sure in a year you can find many third party reference even in Lexika. Deleting it now, will make it difficult to be published again. MentorRC (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. There is no "first check" by anyone, articles go online immediately upon creation. Whether the article is ever reviewed is simply hit and miss. I don't think the article should stay. The organization does not meet our notability requirements, which require that notable third-party sources such as books published by an established publisher, established magazines or newspapers, or major online sources have reported in-depth about the organization. That is, an organization is not notable until it has gotten some press. It is very rare that a small fraternal organization will become notable in less than 20 to 30 years, unless something bad happens like everyone drinking the kool-aid or engaging in terrorism. In that sense, it's a good thing that the org is not notable.
Also, if and when the organization does get enough press to meet our notability requirements, it will not be at all hard to write an new article which is well-sourced and fulfills our notability requirements. We have no prejudice against formerly deleted articles if the situation has actually changed. We only object to the reposting of essentially identical, insufficiently sourced articles. Yworo (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then - and I am not trying to be interrogative here - where does it say anything about "significant press" as being a requirement for relevance? What about its relevance? It has been documented by other established organizations that are, for lack of a better term, "competitors" of the A.O.R., that a split happened in BOTA Europe with Daniel Wagner in the 90's. The A.O.R. was the order he formed after that. WHY is that not relevant for the sake of investigation of this topic? If you wanted to learn about the issue of the split in BOTA Europe, how is it that the A.O.R. is not notable?
http://www.golden-dawn.com/se/displaycontent.aspx?pageid=330
This link also provided information about the split with BOTA before it appeared in the Wikipedia article, making it clear that the source of the information on this link did not come from the Wikipedia article itself. There has also been a third party reference added to the Wikipedia article (written in French) that also confirms the split. ContributeUS (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The general notability requirement states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Note that the criteria are "significant coverage" - that means mere mentions aren't sufficient. "Reliable sources", among other things, means that the sources can't be self-published, they have to be published by a third-party not affiliated with the writer of the material. The Golden Dawn link that you provided is self-published, written by the organization that publishes the website: it can't be used for information about any organization but the publishing organization in an article about that organization (if other sources establish notability), and even then only for non-controversial, non-self-serving material. So, the Golden Dawn article can only be used for information about the Golden Dawn, it can't be used for information about BOTA. Yworo (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So then why is it that the Golden Dawn website can be used for information only about the Golden Dawn, but the A.O.R. website can not be used for information about the A.O.R.? Isn't that setting a double standard? The Golden Dawn is an established organization with a considerable amount of expertise in the realm of philosophical organizations of this sort. Why wouldn't their acknowledgement of the A.O.R., in addition to their offering a breif commentary as to how the A.O.R. relates to their own order, be sufficient enough to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the A.O.R. does in fact exist as a credible, albeit small, order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ContributeUS (talk • contribs) 19:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who said that it couldn't be? The A.O.R. website can be used for non-controversial information about the A.O.R. It cannot, however, be used to establish notability. The existence of the organization is not in question, only its notability. Notability requires verifiable evidence. Yworo (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well then if the existence of the organization and it's history are deemed valid, then why is it's relevance in question? With regard to modern-day Rosicrucian organizations (specifically the split with BOTA), why wouldn't the Golden Dawn's acknowledgment of the A.O.R. constitute verifiable evidence? The A.O.R. has offered a link to an article from an esoteric magazine (which I believe translates to Pulsar Magazine) from March 2009. It has also listed another source (that is not apparently associated with either organization) that further confirms the split. Why are none of these references notable?
When I read the GNG, it seems to speak of "relevance" or "a level of uniqueness that constitutes further elaboration"? Is notability just about popularity? Because the GNG states that an article doesn't even have to be important to merit it's own article. (P.S. Thank you for your patience.)ContributeUS (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said several times, notability is about having reliable reports about the organization written and published by people unaffiliated with the organization. The reason why the Golden Dawn page isn't suitable is because it is self-published. Anybody can write anything on the Internet. If they had the very same article published in a book issued by an independent publisher, say Llewellyn or Weiser, then you could use the article as a source. The reason is that when something factual is published, the publisher's editors review the material and do some fact checking, and don't print what isn't verifiable. In this case, that particular Golden Dawn group is itself not notable. (It's article was deleted back in 2007. It now appears to be a redirect to the article about the older, notable, order whose name they appropriated.) Yworo (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. It seems like this is similar to the process that a scientific paper undergoes before being published in a peer reviewed journal. It doesn't necessarily mean that the information presented is correct or that all agree with it, but just that it's worth hearing about. Correct? However, the difference is that in peer reviewed scientific papers, scientists are reviewing other scientists. I don't fully understand why an editor is more credible in the area of spiritual philosophy than is another, unassociated spiritual group with far more expertise in that field. However, that aside, you've said the AOR's existence isn't the issue and the specific variance in it's teachings from other orders isn't the issue. You've said neither of these were in question. But what is the issue is whether or not the order has been deemed worthy to report on, yes? If that's the case, I ask that you have a look at Mentor RC's most recent post below.ContributeUS (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Annnnd so it appears you already have. My apologies Yworo. Thanks.ContributeUS (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, we know where the true continental roots of the Rosicrucian Order are (prior to the Golden Dawn) MentorRC (talk) 11:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yours seems to be the only new response that wasn't completely subjective. I can't speak to the "turf wars" mentality, as I am not the author (though this does seem a little extreme for Wikipedia). However, if you could, would please let me know why the sources listed in this discussion don't meet the GNG. And if possible use my discussion with Yworo for reference (he's been patiently responding to all of my questions. It'd be a shame to keep going around in circles and make no progress.) Thank you.ContributeUS (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I haven't much to add that Yworo didn't already say; I do reiterate that while pertinent information in an article can come from the subject's website, that cannot be used to support the subject's notability under the applicable criteria. That being said, WP:RS, WP:SOURCES and WP:GNG go into more detail as to the type of sources we seek: "newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and scientific journals." Should this organization be featured in any of the same, those articles haven't attracted the attention of G-News so far [8].  Ravenswing  21:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elias Rubenstein was part of an austrian TV talkshow Barbara Karlich, he was interviewed by TV and his last public Talk on the subject of his latest book was recorded by TV aswell, cutting is in progress and it will be aired in Spring 2011. There was coverage in secondary resouces http://www.sein.de/archiv/2007/maerz-2007/die-rosenkreuzer.html, but he legally changed his name last year, so most of the articles can't be used with valid prove. MentorRC (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
page 18 at http://www.mystikum.at/downloads_ausgaben/Mystikum_Dezember_2008.pdf has an online article, others are print only MentorRC (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.sein.de/archiv/2009/november-2009/die-kabbalah-und-der-lebensbaum.html is another online article MentorRC (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if you give me some time i could list probably 7-10 article in diffrent Esoterik Magazines, is scanned proof needed? MentorRC (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few articles, this should be sufficient coverage for notability, I will research some of the ISSN numbers of the listed magazines MentorRC (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to include the names of the authors of the articles in the citations. Also, you need to let us know which if any of the authors are members of the Order. If the articles are written by Order members, then they are not third-party reliable sources and don't help establish notability. Yworo (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
do you think I have a fulltime job here to make this a valid Wikipedia Article? How long will this discussion last until a judgment is delivered, it is now midnight in continental Europe MentorRC (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to panic, AfDs run for five days from nomination. Yworo (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember at least two of them being interviews, but I will check back MentorRC (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hamid Mirzaie is legally not member of the order, Elias Rubenstein is MentorRC (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable - I couldn't find sufficient coverage in reliable third-party sources. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the Rosicrucian organisations mentioned at Rosicrucians are in black, not blue, and I can't see any good reason this one not to be too. (I'm not saying 'because' they are, note, just that this could well be in the same position.) Ancient? Yes, well... If it's a secret society, let it be so. For the record, I am not a Rosicrucian of any variety (I prefer Rosey Nosey to rosy crosses). In my profession, I am for hire, but this is Wikipedia not my profession. Peridon (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this is a personal opinion of NO relevance MentorRC (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And your opinion that is so strong in support of this article makes me think rather of WP:COI... Peridon (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of intererst was discussed above, thank you MentorRC (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning my COI, I am not author of this article, I am simply improving by investigating facts and sources, no personal discussion needed anymore MentorRC (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of interest does not refer to being the author of the article. It refers to the strong possibility of your being a member of the Order. Are you? Yworo (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what kind of conflict is this? I am interested in making this a working article for Wikipedia, what is your interest? MentorRC (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but maybe it is the best that this article gets deleted, so that nobody can add unscourced information to it MentorRC (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of Interest WP:COI is when someone is personally involved with a subject - possibly being the subject of an article, or working for the company that is the subject, or being an involved member of the subject organisation. In view of the interest and knowledge shown by this account, the vast majority of whose edits are in connection with this article - and the remainder on related subjects, I am slightly concerned. The article has been edited by a series of single purpose accounts (editing this and closely related articles) who seem to form a series from the original author. Having taken part in many AfD discussions (on the side of deletion, retention or just commenting neutrally), I have seen other cases at AfD where this happened in the history of an article. It is sometimes done to make it appear that there are a lot of people editing. I am not suggesting that there is multiple account abuse going on here - and am not sure whether serial account use would be regarded as abuse - as I have no practical evidence. Perhaps an admin could clarify for us. Peridon (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the article should proof notability, not google MentorRC (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What of the new content added to the Bibliography and References of the Wikipedia article? Why is that not enough to constitute notability? ContributeUS (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If those sources - and I note that not a single one is in English - indeed discuss this splinter group in "significant detail," as the GNG requires, then yes, it would. What sections of those books do so, please? What's the publication history, so we can gauge the books' own merit? Vanity and small-press publications make up a significant number of such claims, so we ought to check.  Ravenswing  19:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this is Wikipedia English, but that doesn't necessarily mean that any topics worthy of note in non-English speaking parts of the world shouldn't be made accessible to the non-English speaking (yes?). I don't have the books or publications myself. However, there does seem to be enough there to at least assume that there is more than a "trivial mention," even if these sources don't serve as the "main topic of the source material."
The only reason I felt compelled to ask is because, when questioned about BOTA, the general concensus seemed to be that a search on Google books was enough to establish notability. I was under the impression that the same assumption of good faith on the part of the editor would be given (in other words, we would all believe that they weren't lying about the material) and providing ISBN's and ISSN's, so that the reader could validate the source material should they choose to, would be enough to establish that the content was verifiable. ContributeUS (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we typically don't give much credence to a long list of sources not actually used to source the text. If these sources were used to cite article content in footnotes, then we'd have some idea of the content of the sources. As it is, there is no reason to believe these "sources" do anything more than make a passing mention of the subject. Articles about non-notable organizations are written all the time. Listing every article that merely mentions the subject is the usual reaction when the article in nominated for deletion. This is easy to determine when the sources are in English and readily available. When the sources are not, it's up to the editors providing the sources to actually make use of them to source material in the article. If these sources are really in-depth, then we'd expect a much longer, more detailed, and well-sourced article to result from them, not just the addition of a long list or books and articles. Yworo (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not quite. It is the explicit responsibility of editors advocating to Keep an article to provide sources which satisfy the pertinent notability guidelines, and therefore to have done the research to ascertain that they do before presenting them to us. Yworo correctly states that a common occurrence at AfD is Keep proponents throwing up a blizzard of Google links and cites without ever reading through a one. WP:AGF only requires that we presume that editors are acting in good faith, not that we presume that editors are conforming to policy and guideline just because they think they are. Beyond that, I'm sure you can spot some of the flaws in the argument. When you say "there does seem to be enough there to at least assume that there is more than a "trivial mention,"" how do you know? If, as you say, you have read none of those books or articles, in point of fact, you have no idea at all whether the subject is mentioned in "significant detail" in them. And neither do we.  Ravenswing  20:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying. That is why I was confused when a Google Books search result seemed to be enough to confirm notability for BOTA. I had the same questions: "How do you know?" "Who is to say what the content is in these books or how reputable the publishers are?" (For the most part, the answer to those questions are still unclear) In any event, it does seem like many of the works recently posted in the bibliography were printed publications as opposed to web links. How do Wikipedia editors typically handle printed works to establish notability? Is the author to provide scanned documents for Wikepedia editor review (and, if so, wouldn't this potentially cross into the realm of copyright infringement)? I guess what I am asking is: at what point has the author done enough and supplied the reader with enough information that the burden of proof is no longer on them?
Whatever the case, I thank you for your responses. I understand many probably weren't "swayed" by my first post, and that there were many who probably rolled their eyes at my argument. But I promise you, providing you with that anecdote was not an effort to romance anyone with my "triumphs in arm-chair scholarship," but to simply show that, while this article could be dissected according to the "letter" of Wikipedia (as you can do with most anything, should you choose to be litigious enough), I do believe it's existence is valid in the "spirit" of what Wikipedia is intended to be. Meaning, I wanted to know more about a certain topic and was able to thanks to the existence of this article (as well as many similar - and equally notable - articles) in Wikipedia. That reason alone seems like it should be enough to include an article in the event that there is a grey area with regard to an issue like notability. And while each poster seems to be extremely well-versed in WP guidelines, I must reaffirm my original stance that the issue of notability with respect to this article is at best a grey area, especially when considering the standard by which other articles mentioned in this debate seemed to have been held to.ContributeUS (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know because I looked at several of them using Google preview, I recognized some of the authors and publishers as reliable, and I added a citation to the article using a source that had a titled section on BOTA. Yworo (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:: Keep this entry has proofed notability by articles and interviews. its not about language of users, but the content of the entry. It fullfills all the requirements for an international site on Wikipedia 129.27.143.117 (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC) — 129.27.143.117 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Just as a procedural note, I've blocked this IP as evasion from MentorRC. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:43, 16 December 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 10:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Lost websites"

[edit]
"Lost websites" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be complete WP:OR, with no references except to the author's own website. No indication that this is important, significant, or notable in any way. And the title is wrong. — Timneu22 · talk 15:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 23:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wakeley Gage

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

This is a biography drawn entirely from primary sources (club website and match programmes) on a minor league player. He is now retired from football and never played in the Premiership so is extremely unlikely ever to be the primary focus of any reliable independent sources. The subject requests deletion as the article is being used to publish unsourced and intensely private information, which has had to be revdeleted. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 9 December 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. Not as clear a "keep" result as the number of !votes suggests: the delete side raised valid points such as whether the sourcing was diverse enough to be significant for the purposes of notability, and whether the event passed WP:EVENT. The "Chinese PR/propaganda" arguments had less weight as it is not at all clear what policy or guideline prohibits an article dealing neutrally with a country's propaganda attempt. Overall, the consensus is that the sourcing is sufficient (noting coverage in mainstream western media) and the WP:EVENT argument hasn't been considered in enough detail, nor does it have enough support, to push the result to "delete/redirect/merge" in light of the large numerical support and reasonable arguments for "keep". This one may be worth revisiting in the future, when the impact and enduring notability of the award can be more clearly discerned. Mkativerata (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confucius Peace Prize

[edit]
Confucius Peace Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speculative award that, as the sources the articles cite make fairly clear, hasn't been given yet, hasn't contacted its supposed first recipient, and is claimed to have governmental connections yet having its director claim to have no governmental connection. Until the award is actually publicly given and shown to have any kind of significance, delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prize has been awarded (though awardee not in attendance at ceremony), information regarding the prize is all over the internet, with several articles in very notable publications, most of them noting controversy over prize...strong keep.Buyjoe (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DominicConnor (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC) : Now that they've given the award, it's a 'real' thing, and it's been covered, and since they say it's been planned since 1988 (The Guardian), it's possible that this might be the first in the series. There is however some doubt that it was given *by* the PRC, since after the media coverage received outside the PRC, no no mniistry seems to be willing to take responsibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DominicConnor (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While the article needs plenty of expansion, it already justifies itself well by comparing the award to a Nazi alternate Nobel. It's clear from that article that the German prize was a short-lived political stunt, but I don't think anyone's suggesting we delete it. The Nobel Prize is serious business, and a world power creating an alternate award in protest is a notable reaction that merits mention. I wouldn't be strongly opposed to it being limited to the Nobel Prize controversies page, but as the other alternate awards have their own pages, Confucius should too. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. The award is essentially a non-existent piece of Chinese propaganda, "created" to blunt the recent Nobel price kerfuffle. Therefore the award itself, such as it exists, is not notable. No one is really talking about it except in terms of its reactionary-ness to the above. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's not WP:BALL speculative, it's real and it has happened. Just because it's pathetic doesn't mean it's not noteworthy. Appears to have sister articles in several other languages. --Bxj (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not official, but notable, covered by media. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Encyclopedic notability is based not on fairness and honourableness of the article subject but on its impact and acquaintance. A Wikipedia article is not a certification but information. --ŠJů (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's irrelevant whether it's a "real" prize or not. This entry will have historical relevance, since it is directly related to Liu Xiaobo's Nobel Price. This fake Confucius prize is maybe a small cog in the machine, but an important one nonetheless. Maybe it should redirect to the main article 2010 Nobel Peace Prize, but not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wild Wizard (talk • contribs) 10:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Regardless of its nature, this PR fail and gaffe is notable and attracts wide attentions. --Winstonlighter (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I concur with others, Wikipedia doesn't certify legitimacy, we just consider notability. As this award has been covered extensively in international media (in relation to Nobel prize), it is indisputably notable. Just because it may or may not be a propaganda prize doesn't mean it is not real - there was an award given, and a monetary prize, and the footage was shown on TV. There are plenty of articles about awards that have been recently established, and only given once (so far). See: Ben Jobe Award, Walter Scott Prize. Incidentally, in researching this, I discovered that the number of awards given to American NCAA coaches which each have their own article is ridiculous. But I'm not calling delete on any of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazerbryant (talk • contribs) 15:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep whatever you think of it, probably notable enough for a speedy close now. —innotata 16:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable and notable, and has been observed, the Chinese analog of the Lenin Peace Prize and German National Prize for Art and Science. Wingsandsword (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. It obviously has verifiable sources and is of encyclopedic content; my only question is about whether its notoriety (or lack thereof) merits its own article. If it does not, however, it should be merged, and its content maintained, and not simply redirected. Mnmazur (talk)
  • I did not know that Wikipedia was used as a tool to spread propaganda. May I say that with uttermost respect to Wikipedia/Wikimedia that the Chinese people have acted very strange in the last weeks and have recently broken international laws by hacking various servers/websites in Norway as a result to the "real" Peace Prize. As China has stated. This prize is only for their own interest with no one that will receive it. China attracts media on every aspect. Why consider China before another country. I thought Wikipedia was neutral. Do not support this evil regime. Please, Wikipedia. By keeping this article up and running you will weaken Democracy. I can not allow that to happen. Please. It breaks WIkipedias guidelines and is not notable enough. Use common sense. --FP (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To say that keeping this article is akin to spreading propaganda and supporting "evil regime" is very wrong, imo. It is like saying having Adolf Hitler's article on Wikipedia means that people support him.—Chris!c/t 21:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a propaganda/PR effort to oppose the NPP, but lives considerably in its shadow or tries to hang onto its coattails. All mentions of it are in direct connection with the NPP. It may have the tacit endorsement of the state, but it is not even sponsored by the state nor any notable organisation, and so has no independent notability. It should be redirected to 2010 Nobel Peace Prize at best. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading from the above comments, there appears to be a miscomprehension about the policy on notability. Indeed there are many sources covering the story. However, those news articles centred on the subject are all from the same agency-syndicated story, say essentially the same thing, meaning that there it actually fails "Significant coverage". If this were a person, the prize would fail WP:ONEEVENT. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I agree that this is not notable enough to have a standalone article. But I think it deserves mentioning in 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. This is China's response to the whole Peace Prize kerfuffle.—Chris!c/t 19:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is certainly notable by any definition of the term, regardless of the motivation of the prize or how well it is executed its first year (and it is notable even if it is only given once). I do not think that it necessarily deserves mention in the 2010 Nobel peace prize article, but the 2010 Nobel peace prize probably deserves mention here (as indeed it is given). Son of eugene (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might like to keep an eye on the Confucius Peace Prize article. I inserted a "See also" link to the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize article, because of their obvious connection, and it was deleted without explanation within hours. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 21:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is unnecessary since the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize link is in the prose already.—Chris!c/t 23:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. After I posted above, I noticed that the link had been inserted into the prose with the same edit that removed the "See also" link. My bad. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 00:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know if lowly IP Addresses have weight in this vote, but I nonetheless support this article's existence on Wikipedia. It is notable by all means and very heavilly sourced, and also referenced by the mainstream media at large. It even has an image and a good chunk of content already standing. It needs expansion, yes, but it is a good article and a worthwhile inclusion, at least in my eyes. --99.157.108.248 (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As this award has been reported by many mainstream news media.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The point, again, is not whether it has been covered by mainstream media or not; it clearly has, many many times over. The point is: is it a 15 minutes of fame situation? Will anyone even hear of the award again after the current discussion about this year's Nobel's is over? If it dies (and I have every reason to believe that it will) it is simply not notable by itself. --Nlu (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Even if a one off award, it is notable, well documented, and of international significance. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have gone over the article's citations and amalgamated and/or removed the duplicated ones. It can now be seen that it is not as much 'multiply and heavily sourced' as implied, but reliant on a few syndicated stories from the three or four major news agencies. It should also be noted that a number of them, in particular the Economist citation does not even mention the CPP; some of the others merely recycle aspects of the syndicated news report. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the economist article cited: "The battering suffered by the West during the global economic crisis appears to have made Chinese leaders thicker skinned. But the state-controlled media’s handling of the first “Confucius Peace Prize”, which was awarded in Beijing this week, suggests that officials remain sensitive. The Chinese press played the event down. Officials said the government did not have a hand in it (as the party-affiliated Global Times reported, in Chinese). Perhaps they might have worried that Hitler too organised a home-grown version of the Nobel prize, the German National Prize for Art and Science, in response to von Ossietzky’s award." --Banana (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I spent a lot of time thinking about this. Looking at the notability guidelines for events (WP:EVENT), there are several things outlined.

1)Diversity of sources

I see coverage in an official Chinese newspaper three weeks before the event and then covering the actual event, a bunch of articles in Western papers based off of an AP report, Taiwanese newspapers covering it's political implications inside of Taiwan, and then commentary from The New York Times (not included in the article, but I'm using it here to establish notability) and the Economist.

2)Lasting effects

None, but I think this falls under this quote from the policy: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."

3) Geographical scope

Don't think anyone is disagreeing with this.

4) Depth of coverage

Commentary by Economist and the New York Times.

5) Duration of coverage

The policy:"a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." I think the commentary (especially from the Economist about the future long term implications for China) pushes this over.

--Banana (talk) 01:20, 14 December 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 10:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Records

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

I can find no evidence of notability. The majority of the "references" cited in the article do not even mention Seven Records. All of the others either just give a brief credit to the company or are pages on the company's own web site. Not one of them is an independent source which tells us any more than that the company produced a particular record. Searching for "Seven Records" on Google there are loads of hits to pages that mention those two words together but have nothing to do with this company (including pages on other companies such as Phase Seven Records and Fifty Seven Records Inc) but among the first 80 Google hits as far as I can see almost the only ones mentioning this company are pages of its own (its web site, its MySpace and Facebook pages). There is also a page on www.vinylsearcher.com listing records from "Seven Records", but all it does is give a list of records on the label, so it does not constitute significant coverage. In short, there is no evidence of notability anywhere. None of the bands whose records are released on this label seems to be particularly significant either (though of course even if they were that would not automatically confer notability on the record company). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 9 December 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 10:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Save Our Strays Vermont

[edit]
Save Our Strays Vermont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this local organization has received enough attention in non-local reliable sources to meet our notability guidelines for organizations. ThemFromSpace 10:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Personally, I'd argue this should be a Speedy Delete A7 candidate as an article about an organisation with no credible assertion of notability, but were I an admin I'd be reluctant to make that call. In any case the article does not provide significant discussion in reliable independent sources capable of sastifying the general notability guidelines and I have been unable to identify any. (Please note that there is no agreement on whether or not local sources do or do not count towards notability. WP:LOCAL is an essay which says "no", while WP:LOCALINT is a proposed guideline that says "yes", with the talk page discussion leaning towards a view that Wikipedia should be more inclusive yet in regards to local interests. In the absence of community consensus, WP:N wins, which makes no mention of local notability not being notability generally.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is some wording regarding this in WP:CORP. ...attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary. ThemFromSpace 11:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, that sentence was added in this diff of 11 September 2008, following this discussion in which one editor supported the change and (a more experienced editor) strongly opposed it. So I don't think it's our most well-reasoned piece of policy and I might bring that up on the relevant talk page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 11:32, 9 December 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 10:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat Bedre

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

Article not satisfying the notability guidelines. . Shlok talk . 10:55, 9 December 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 00:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole DeLaCruz

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

Long-term unreferenced BLP, fails WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn. Good work on the sourcing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharissa

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

Unreferenced BLP for nearly a year and a half, fails WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. As sources were located and the article improved, the consensus has changed to "keep". Parts of the article still seem a bit spammy, but that can be addressed through editing rather than deletion. Mkativerata (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ebiquity

[edit]
Advanced search for: 
"Ebiquity"
In books/documents 
Google Books
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives
Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal
The Wikipedia Library

Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central
Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
Ebiquity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely promotional article about a company that does not establish or even suggest any form notability. WP:PROMO, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Article was speedied, userfied, and although the editor was advised that it was not ready for primetime at a request for WP:REFUND, they moved it back into articlespace. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. No genuine notability and no assertion of any notability. For most Wikipedia readers this is very much a back-office outfit and will be known only within its own business circles and not the bigger world. Self promotional. The relentless business speak doesn't help either.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi,

    The article is about a well known international company who have offices around the world and are listed on the London stock exchange. Regarding notability, they often generate news interest beyond passing mention or reference as a source. In fact they have been the main focus of news stories from well know international news and media channels such as The Financial Times and Campaign. As the news channels that offer the more detailed analysis have put content behind pay walls it has reduced the amount of references available that everyone can see. People from around the world who read publications like The Financial Times, The Independent and Telegraph who have combined circulation of over a million would have at some point have heard of Ebiquity.

    The original user who moved the article to their user space agreed Ebiquity is a valid subject to have an individual page but wrote that it needed to be edited, before moving it back over I rewrote the article and removed the content I could not find independent references for. The user has kindly offered to edit the article to make it move wikipedia friendly and useful for people wishing to research a well known company they may want to find out about.

    Can you hold off deleting it so we can turn it into something useful? Wwjx0p (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please cite the articles in the Financial Times, The Independent, and The Telegraph that you are talking about. Their own archive searches show no such articles existing. Uncle G (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't hold your breath. You'll note he/she said that readers of Financial Times etc. "would have at some point have heard" of this titan of industry. I doubt we'll ever be told where or when. EEng (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The company was founded as Thomson Intermedia, and coverage under this name includes articles in:
Furthermore the company bought Billetts, which probably has further sourcing, but I stumbled across this, this and this. I would firstly apologise to Wwjx0p for not giving the time I initially offered, and then to the other editors involved in this discussion, as I should never have let it get to this point. Bigger digger (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I have taken the libery of tagging this for ARS rescue as I don't think I'm going to get to it. Bigger digger (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Keep and rescue if someone wants to remove all the advertising, or change to stub if not. Probably enough coverage for an article, but not this one. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. GedUK  11:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Margaret Dinnington

[edit]
Lady Margaret Dinnington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability? I cannot find reliable sources on the subject Crowsnest (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This appears to be a hoax: nothing to be found on the "Lord of Flawforth". -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:06, 9 December 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. Courcelles 10:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Powell (geographer)

[edit]
Doug Powell (geographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article appears to fail the WP:PROF and WP:GNG guidelines. I find only tangential mentions in Google Books and no evidence of direct use of his works for citations in Google Scholar. Being a good teacher at UCB is not a guarantee of encyclopaedic notability. Fæ (talk) 09:27, 9 December 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 10:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tremors V: The Thunder from Down Under

[edit]
Tremors V: The Thunder from Down Under (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed to delete: this article states a movie Tremors V: The Thunder from Down Under is being made, but has no sources other than a 2-year-old rumour. Previous almost identical article already deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tremors: The Thunder From Down Under. The discussion page for the article Talk:Tremors V: The Thunder from Down Under has several comments from editors that the movie is not going ahead, and that the current IMDB page is a hoax. Example:

I found this on Stampede Entertainment's Website stating that Universal and Stampede Entertainment aren't filming this movie, and Universal dosen't want to film the movie. The article should be deleted since the movie isn't filming or in production. A friend and me sent an email to Stampede, and the directors of the movies themselves confirmed they aren't filimg, and what is in the link below is 100% true. [15]71.97.187.209 (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Tremors (fan) wiki says

As of August 31, 2010, Stampede Entertainment confirmed that this movie is not in production, and they contacted IMDB to remove the IMDB page about it.

This appears to be a product of wishful thinking and/or hoaxers. Should be deleted per WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." Barsoomian (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with this deletion of the article. I would post a valid link from a producer of the Tremors movies themselves, but the pages have been blanked. Also, that isn't a Tremors fan wiki. Its an encylopedia about the Tremors franchise, I'm the administrator there, I created the page with information that was thought to be true at the time, but the only other contributer said the page should be kept.--71.97.178.233 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comments on the talk page. It only takes one person to revert a simple proposed delete, so I had to do this Afd. (I suggest you sign up for an account, you could do more, such as making an Afd yourself, and other editors take you more seriously.) And no disrespect meant to your wiki, but if if it's made by fans, which it appears to be, not by say Stampede, then it's a fan wiki. Barsoomian (talk) 03:03, 11 December 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 School District 68 Nanaimo-Ladysmith. Spartaz Humbug! 19:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Learn at Home 8-12

[edit]
Learn at Home 8-12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable school program WuhWuzDat 07:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define a notable vs. a non notable school program? - Lclairem (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Lclairem[reply]
Hi Lclairem. I'm putting a brief introduction to notability on Wikipedia on your talk page, which will hopefully let you contribute to the debate. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge - Fails WP:GNG, and WP:RS, in addition to which, it falls under primary/elementary schools which do not qualify for articles, and which are generally merged to their governing authority or locality. This DL school and its programme is a standard feature of education and it appears to have done nothing out of the ordinary to assert any degree of notability for an insertion in an encyclopedia. The Wikipedia is not another schools listing website such as all the external links that are provided. The one referenced source is not relevant the subject's notability or to the article. --Kudpung (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the guideline for secondary schools which do not qualify for articles? By serving up to grade 12, this is a secondary school. —C.Fred (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet per the article, "Learn@Home 8-12 provides free secondary school courses to students in the Nanaimo-Ladysmith school district in British Columbia, Canada."[emphasis added] There is a separate primary school initiative, but that's not what this article is addressing. Further quoting the official site: "to work towards their BC Dogwood Diploma and/or to upgrade their high school courses" and "Is designed for students in grades 8 to 12." That's secondary school. —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a difference between "offering courses", and being a "school". As this seems to be a "Distance learning program", and not an actual school, I feel the best solution may be to MERGE the information into the parent school district article. WuhWuzDat 20:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG, which states "School district and high school (or equivalent) articles are usually kept, as they are almost always considered notable, unless their existence cannot be verified in order to stop hoaxes." Bill 33 is sufficient to verify the existence of the school. Accordingly, the article should be kept and improved—or if it never gets beyond a stub, merged with the district's article, which is still a keep outcome. —C.Fred (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC) revised 05:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may not matter to you or change your opinion but grades 9-12 are secondary school, not primary school. ElKevbo (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since this AfD was started, the article has been expanded to cover the fact that it may well indeed be offering education in mainstream core subjects not to 8 - 12 year old pupils, but to American school grade nomenclature 8 - 12, which would mean that it is is a provider of secondary education. This may significantly change the status of this education provider per WP:WPSCHOOLS, but two questions still need answering: When is a school not a school? And does a distance learning programme assert notability?
    FWIW, I think it does not, and therefore my Delete or Merge statement still stands. Kudpung (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "When is a school not a school?" is a key question here. Based on the discussion at the talk page, it appears to be a school: it has a school number issued by the education ministry in BC. I also agree that it has enough not-a-school elements that the best treatment is probably as a section of the district's article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to school district article. I agree with C. Fred and Kudpung. Visiting the program and district's website clearly identify this as a "program" and not a "school". It notes that students enrolled in this program have access to district resources which makes it a district program of study, not an actual school. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And to clarify, I'm leaning toward merging the article into the district's. However, that's still retaining the content of the article, so I still recommend keeping it. —C.Fred (talk) 05:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge to School District 68 Nanaimo-Ladysmith. "Learn at Home 8-12" program is not a "high school", any more so than an American school district's GED program would be. As the article demonstrates, this program is one that is authorized for all school districts in British Columbia. Although it should be mentioned in the district article, I don't think that this program is more notable than any other alternative education program created under BC law. Mandsford 13:50, 17 December 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 00:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SoftArtisans

[edit]
SoftArtisans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Fileup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(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)

non notable company, created by an SPA account creating a series of articles about this company and its non notable products WuhWuzDat 06:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry, I'm a novice wiki-er, and I've been trying to see what flies and what doesn't. I wasn't trying to turn the wiki page into a promo at all, but I do feel that owning to the originality of what OfficeWriter does--allow users to generate excel spreadsheets and word docs over the web, without having local copies of Office--the company, or at the very least OfficeWriter, should be listed. Perhaps it's best to just create a page about OfficeWriter? I've been getting more approved sources together, including a few programming books that discuss the software. What do you think? I really do want to stay within wiki's guidelines. Cdulaney — Cdulaney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Don't delete I added in notable sources, removed (I hope) all promotional language, and added information.

~~Cdulaney~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdulaney (talk • contribs) 17:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC) — Cdulaney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth

[edit]
Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod; rm'ed by IP (as first and only edit) with no explanation. Article is unencyclopedic in tone, has no assertion of notability whatsoever, and does not seem to meet GNG - there are no reliable independent sources, and nothing substantiates any claims of notability made in the article (everything I have found in trying to figure this out is directly a TOPY site, and there's nothing of substance therein). As a matter of fact, despite reading the article, I cannot tell what the organization does, other than fight amongst itself. The article has been tagged since Sept 2009 for fancruft and SPS, and the org itself seems to be defunct (which the article itself can't seem to decide on either; there may therefore be soapboxing occurring as well. MSJapan (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The only argument presented for deletion that would be valid if true is a lack of reliable independent sources. Google Books, however, shows coverage in the following books: The New Encyclopedia of the Occult, The Re-enchantment of the West: Alternative Spiritualities (which also points to other sources), Disinformation: the Interviews, Allmusic Guide to Electronica (brief), Encyclopedia of American religions, Derek Jarman: a biography, Religion and anthropology: a critical introduction, The New Age Movement: Religion, Culture and Society in the Age of Postmodernity, Everything You Know About Sex is Wrong: Extremes of Human Sexuality (and Everything In-between), Technology as magic: the triumph of the irrational, Magic Power Language Symbol: A Magician's Exploration of Linguistics, and several more. --Michig (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Trivial or otherwise? Many of those sources would seem to have nothing but throwaway refs to the group because they are generic reference works. Also, Google does not care about reliability or accuracy, only existence. I'd like to see the extent and reliability of the coverage and sourcing looked at before we assume that existence of the name in a book automatically equates to meeting the necessary GNG criteria for a keep. In short, we've covered "multiple", but "reliable" and "independent" are still questionable. MSJapan (talk) 19:23, 9 December 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. Significant consensus is present for Keep, with editors noting there is a good deal of coverage in WP:RS sources available to improve upon material relating to the subject matter. -- Cirt (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FedEx Express Flight 647

[edit]
FedEx Express Flight 647 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable incident. There was neither a significant loss of life, nor was there any new regulation(s) introduced as a result. And while it was a complete hull loss, it was a non-commercial non-passenger flight, and wikipedia is not a list of aircraft hull losses. (It fails WP:AIRCRASH too as far as I can tell.) Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 05:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Biography of a plane notable for only one event. WP:EVENT requires the event to be the subject of ongoing and sustained coverage demonstrating its historic notability, for it to have impact on a wide demographic or geographic swathe, or be the catalyst or result of another notable event. It does not meet these criteria. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notability requirements for this article should be taken from WP:AIRCRASH, considering that all air crashes, including those that result in loss of life, are a single event. As for sustained coverage, please see the article. SilverserenC 09:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, WP:AIRCRASH is a project level essay, and so non-binding on two separate counts. Even were it a guideline or, gasp, a policy, it would still be subservient to WP:N as elaborated by the documented community consensus at WP:EVENT. - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article could be improved, and sources are availale to do this (Aviation Safety Network, NTSB report), but needing improvment is not a reason to delete. In response to the nominator's rationale, the NTSB report identified issues with ATC at Memphis did not give fire-fighting vehicles sufficient priority in accessing the airport, delaying their reaching the burning aircraft. One would trust that the issues were addressed as a result of the investigation. Another issue raised was insufficient training of FedEx Express employees in the use of emergency evacuation slides, leading to the incorrect deployment of a slide as a life raft as intended in the case of a ditching. Again, one would trust that this issue was addressed (they were, section 1.17.2.5, NTSB report gives details). I accept that this was a training flight, but the severity of the accident gives sufficient notability to sustain an article on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiprojects notified Mjroots (talk)
There are no WP:CRYSTAL issues in my rationale. The event happened 7 years ago, I have already shown that the training issues were addressed by FedEx. It is almost a certainty that the fire-fighting issues raised in the NTSB report were also addressed. Failure to address them would have left the agencies involved open to claims of negligence should another accident occur and firefighters were again delayed in reaching a burning aircraft because ATC did not give them priority clearance on the surface, even if doing so meant ordering aircraft to abort landings or take-offs. Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I read "one would trust" as speculation on them happening, rather than speculation on their causation. I withdraw my comments about WP:CRYSTAL. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added some references to the article. This article meets criteria #2 for airline articles, "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport". SilverserenC 09:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what about the current sources doesn't meet the GNG? They discuss the crash in significant detail. SilverserenC 09:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The point is, why is the crash, and this aircraft, important? It was not a commercial passenger flight; it was a cargo flight that happened to crash. These things are a dime a dozen. The five passengers mentioned in the article are actual "deadheading" flight personnel. The WP:AIRCRASH] essay lists limitations on small personal aircraft crashes for notability, but guidelines are so vague when it comes to non-commercial large aircraft one really needs to defer to WP:EVENT and general notability guidelines. -- (nominator) Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 10:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? The DC-10-10 is not a small GA aircraft. It is an airliner with a Maximum Take-Off Weight approaching 200 tonnes. The accident led to the loss of this particular aircraft. The aircraft was a commercial aircraft, FedEx were not using it for their own pleasure, but to earn themselves more profit. All sources in the article are independent of FedEx, thus establishing verification x (third party) reliable sources = notability. WP:NOTNEWS is something that is applied to articles on current events, not something that is now 7 years old, i.e, HISTORY. Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTNEWS applies to newsworthy events, not current events. A topic that failed the hurdle of NOTNEWS would not become acceptable merely by the passage of time. It would need to demonstrate that it had ongoing coverage. So in this case, you'd need to show that people are still talking about and discussing this crash seven years later. If I've overlooked a source that shows that, please correct me. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't have to be continuing coverage up until right now at this very second. It has to be coverage that happened a significant time after the accident. The coverage from 2005 would meet that requirement. SilverserenC 10:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "2005 coverage" is (a watchdog blog summarising and re-posting) a report produced by a government instrumentality responding directly to the initial crash. This is routine coverage; a similar document is produced in respect of every aviation incident. It's not evidence of ongoing discussion and significance. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, no, I see, sorry. No, that article, like Aviation Safety Network, is just responding to the release of the government report in that week. It's a routine part of any aviation event, and the chronological distance from the event is only due to the government taking so long to complete the inquiry. It's much the same as in the death of a non-notable individual, where the deceased's estate may take years after their death to finalise, resulting in the eventual public publication of a court grant of probate, but doesn't go to show the enduring historical significance of the deceased. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that both DustFormsWords and Mukkakukaku wish to argue every point and counter-point raised. I've given my reasons as to why I believe the event is notable, and will not make any further contribution to this debate unless asked a direct question. Mjroots (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I only intended to clarify my original nomination wrt points being brought up; I've fixed the indentation on the previous comment. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 10:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can comment as much as you like (as you have done with the informative hull loss stats), rest assured Mjroots is quite wrong in his long held but mistaken belief that Afd is not a debate. Infact, given that some people are not even addressing your nomination reason as they vote keep, it's even more pertinent that you stick around to clarify anyone's current or future misunderstandings about why you want the article deleted, and what policies, guidelines and logic you are invoking to do so. MickMacNee (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should those of us with limited time on our hands feel under some kind of an obligation to improve an article that we think should be deleted? If anyone voting delete here thought the article could be improved sufficiently to be kept, then they were wrong to !vote delete, but I see no evidence of that. Therefore, I'd thank you to restrict your comments to the article, and not to the other commenters.--KorruskiTalk 17:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a comment on process, not on people. Until the effort is made to find them, it isn't possible to form an informed statement on the availability of sources. In this case, as many before, a few minutes of looking found reliable sources that the article previously did not use. It seems an obvious step that the AFD process should include.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This fails EVENT pretty comprehensively, per the nom and others. It's pretty pointless claiming the ASN is WP:N-worthy evidence of notability, their mission is to cover the industry, and as such, they cover everything and anything aircrash related, irrespective of real world notability (and the sole outside source they list for their 'narrative' coverage of this crash is...the NTSB report). And on that score, it is completely invalid to claim the NTSB report is WP:N worthy evidence, they report on all crashes irrespective of historical notability, it's their legal function, and as such it is arguably a non-independent WP:PRIMARY source for the purposes of WP:N (although bizarrely, there are people out there who argue it is a secondary source just like any other peer reviewed research paper!). The 2008 Bangash book, provided as a general reference, appears to be completely irrelevant as regards WP:N, as it only lists this crash as part of a list of crashes, without any accompanying commentary or analysis that I can see - this is practically the definition of a passing mention for the purposes of WP:N. If further analysis in there exists, more page numbers would be useful. The only remotely relevant source presented to support the claim that this was a noteworthy crash with lasting, noted and noteworthy effects (again, a common fallacy in these Afds is that if it is not afforded a whole article on Wikipedia, we are not 'covering' it - which is pure nonsense), is the Aviation Week & Space Technology piece. But that should be seen in the context that it is in effect a trade journal, and it is simply summarizing the contents of the report at the time it was published, as any other topic specific news organisation would. If that's it, it's not convincing in terms of meeting EVENT, not if people accept that Wikipedia is a general reference work which only dedicates whole articles to truly notable aspects of specific fields, rather than arguing it is simply one part of the general Aviation information and research body of historical record (as many people frequently argue, against our mission). If there is any further evidence out there in the form of reliable Wikipedia suitable secondary sources, that assert with their in-depth and detailed coverage of this incident that they consider this crash a defining moment in the training and regulation of the aviation industry, rather than the rather underwhelming reception of the recommendations detailed in this report, then I'd more than happily review them wrt to my vote, but they certainly do not appear to have been found yet to justify any of the claims being made in this Afd from the keep viewpoint with regards to historical impact. Given that the report came out in May 2005, and it happened in America, there can be no excuse for anybody failing to provide this sort of evidence, as the excuses for failing to do that in other Afds such as incidents occuring before the internet age, or occuring in a WP:CSB prone country, or for being too recent to judge lasting effects so 'keep for now' (not that this has ever been policy), are completely irrelevant here. It should be noted that while this is not one of the many such articles created based on the immediate news coverage, which has made any Afd debate completely pointless with regards to EFFECT, the sole source used for the article's state at creation appears to have been the NTSB report, and in terms of asserting notability, it's hard to see how it has really been developed in that regard. The only current development spurred by this Afd appears to be just adding more of the report's detail. MickMacNee (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The accident may not have killed anybody, but the investigation reports by the NTSB and the follow-up reports in the aviation press indicate that it identified some serious safety issues with lasting implications for the aviation industry. Regarding the accident severity, there were injuries, and if there had been more than seven people on the plane (or if the people on the plane hadn't been trained pilots), there likely would have been fatalities. Remember that Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia -- this might not get an article in a print encyclopedia, but it is plenty significant enough in the world of aviation to merit inclusion here. --Orlady (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reports? Plural? There is only one report here that can be described as the 'Aviation Press' in the conventional sense, the Aviation Week & Space Technology piece. The ASN does have print publications, but the 'report' referenced here is their database entry. And both of these sources have clearly done nothing more than use the NTSB as their only source - their coverage contains no in depth reporting and no further analysis. There is nothing in their mere existence to support your claim it was 'plenty significant enough' for the Aviation industry, unless you are under the (wrong) assumption that for example, the ASN doesn't create entries for every crash, or publications like AWST would not normally report on the publication of final reports of all incidents of this size in exactly this way. As for their actual contents, I'd say it's pretty underwhelming as far as evidence of significance goes. WP:OR aside, if you really want to claim that these were significant findings or changes for the industry, then one would expect better evidence would have emerged by now, well after the AWST's news report, to support that assertion. The relevance of NOTPAPER is hard to see, it's not like EVENT was written for a paper encyclopoedia. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • or publications like AWST would not normally report on the publication of final reports of all incidents of this size in exactly this way - actually, I'm pretty sure they don't. It's been my experience that most accidents of this type don't merit publication of their final report in AW&ST. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting I was canvassing, Mick? The note on the ARS talk page was in accordance with the instructions given at WP:ARS - feel free to ask what other editors think on the project talk page, which I did. Mjroots (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well Mjroots, as an admin yourself, here's the point where you really need to stop and think about what you are suggesting about others, rather than worrying about what you think others are suggesting about you. As regards canvassing, it appears to me you've already decided that it is such a suggestion, even though it is as everyone can see, a simple note, nothing more, nothing less. Unless you think there is a good reason not to inform the closer that this discussion has been raised at a high traffic noticeboard like the ARS? Your belief that this simple note is an improper allegation of canvassing, and your chosen way of dealing with it, is markedly similar to the persistant misunderstanding of yours that there is something wrong with people freely debating in an Afd, despite being told by others, even other admins whose business it is after all to judge such debates, that this is a policy interpretation of your own making, which is completely counter to the entire purpose of the exercise. Infact, it's dubious that it can even be called an interpretation, it's just flat wrong. If you don't want to participate, fine, then just leave the discussion, don't post here, or anywhere else about it for that matter. Don't waste other people's time returning here or going elsewhere to cast aspersions on participants who are here to debate the issue. MickMacNee (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Methinks thou dost protest too much. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried ignoring it, it didn't work. I tried an Rfc on it, it didn't work. Short of a bit of well-meritted protesting nowadays, well, I'm sure if he looks in his admin handbook he can see what other limited options he is leaving me. MickMacNee (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find it honestly bizzare to see the article described as a biography of an aircraft. And also in the various air-crash AfD's I've seen, no matter how acrimonious the debate got (and it gets pretty nasty sometimes!), WP:EVENT has never been brought up. WP:AIRCRASH may be a "project-level essay", but it is still the standard used for the evaluation of aircraft-crash articles to determine if they should be deleted on grounds of notability. In addition, invoking WP:NOTNEWS on an event that occured in 2003, and didn't have an article created until 2006, is, IMHO, picayune and stretching the definition of "not news" considerably (is something still "news" three years after the event? How about seven years?). It should also be noted that the crash and its NTSB report are cited in books published in 2008 ([17], [18]) and 2009 ([19]) - thus demonstrating 'continued coverage'.- The Bushranger One ping only 16:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ("Biography of a plane notable for one event" was a play on words, referencing our policy on biographies of persons notable for only one event. I'll admit that it wasn't a good bit of wordplay. Sorry for the confusion.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • EVENT has always been part of AIRCRASH, both the old version, and the new one, which effectively simply says - to have an article, it must meet the GNG, EVENT and NOTNEWS. It cannot be more clearer than that that EVENT is relevant to aircrashes. And I don't see what coverage you are claiming from those book refs. #1 was already in the article, and consists of a single list entry it seems. #2 obviously used it as a ref for it's contents, but how? why? #3 is not even displaying for me, so I cannot see what you are calling coverage there. We definitely need more info than just bare links to assess those. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not disputing that WP:EVENT is part of WP:AIRCRASH; it is and should be. It's just that citing WP:EVENT in and of itself , in a context saying 'use WP:EVENT not WP:AIRCRASH', struck me as being distinctly odd. And what I'm calling coverage in all cases is that the crash is clearly considered significant enough to appear in studies of the subject. The third ref, from the snip on the Google Books result page for "Express Flight 467", appears to be using the report as a reference as well. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • AIRCRASH is not ignorable in terms of recognising that for aviation, some editors consider "changes to procedures, regulations or processes" as evidence of lasting impact, but it does not over-ride EVENT, which requires lasting coverage to that effect, to support a separate article. In terms of the books, just knowing that the report was referenced by them is not exactly informative. It could be supporting one paragraph, or an entire chapter, without further info, who knows what it is referencing? Clearly, EVENT requires at least one of them to be mentioning the crash and one or more of the resulting changes, to be remotely relevant as 'coverage'. MickMacNee (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you using an alt? SilverserenC 23:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It says on the user page that's for access from public terminals. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For info: Fedex 597 was an uncontained engine failure on a DC-10-10, with a successful 2-engine landing being performed. FedEx 7145 was an inflight cargo fire on a Fokker F-27 Mk.500 which was dealt with on the ground. Niehter was as severe as the accident under discussion here. Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment -- I chose those because they were other FedEx Flights. Otherwise, I'm just going to point people to Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Plan Accidents (1959-2009), published by Boeing. The key part is page 18 of the PDF: from 2000-2009 there have been 138 hull losses of passenger aircraft, 52 of cargo, 8 of "other" for a total of 198; from 1959-2009 there were 659 passenger aircraft hull losses, 164 cargo hull losses, and 73 "other" hull losses for a total of 896. And this is only for Boeing aircraft. (direct link to PDF). Just saying that "hull loss" as a notability indicator is opening a scary big can of worms. -Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 16:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"..routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
Sorry, but a DC-10 landing gear collapse and crash landing is not routine nor anything like the disqualifying-criteria explained in the policy. Easily passes WP:GNG.(Edit: It easily passes GNG by the very in-depth significant coverage given to this topic by the sources in the article. I will not cater to MickMacNee completely absurd demand that I cut and past those entire sources into this AfD, ostensibly to pander to his "argument by assertion" rebuttal. It is childish and a complete waste of bandwidth.--Oakshade (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)) --Oakshade (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the closer's benefit as much as yourself Oakshade, this here is a strawman argument. The stated reason for deletion is not NOT#NEWS, and EVENT does not exist just to keep out articles sourced to news reports. EVENT is being cited here as the goto notability guideline to judge whether "past real events" are notable or not, irrespective of the contemporary news coverage, and given that the article was created 3 years after the event, and even now it only contains one contemporary news type reference, this keep rationale does not address the reason for deletion, and neither does the vaguewave to the GNG tacked onto the end of it, given the sparcity of any in depth secondary souring used in the article. MickMacNee (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MickMacNee, stop embarrassing yourself and learn what a straw man argument is before bandying it about. It's when someone of an opposing view invents their opponent's argument and then argues against that invented stance. In fact, deletion advocate DustFormsWords has invoked WP:NOTNEWS twice in this afd. --Oakshade (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? You can clearly see above that the Afd nominator is Mukkakukaku (talk · contribs), not DustFormsWords, and the deletion rationale he posted is here, in which he never mentions NOT#NEWS once, or even comes close to referring to it as a deletion reason. User DustFormsWords can say whatever he likes, he can invoke purple flying monkeys as his own deletion reasons for all it matters, you are not required to answer his reasons at all as a minimum contribution (although it is worth everyone's while that if people have valid objectoins to other people's valid arguments, then they should say so, as that is after all the whole point of this debate, to test each other's arguments against logic and policy, in order to allow the consensus view to be determined). But as an absolute minimum, in terms of properly contributing to an Afd at all, the only thing you are required to do, is to answer the nominator's deletion rationale (as long as his nomination is a valid one, which it clearly is). Even then, you are not even required to give a good rebuttal at all, but of course as everybody should know having read the destructions for this process beforehand as is advised, some arguments are better than others. Because Wikipedia does not have any defined inclusion criteria, and we only have defined exclusion criteria, some of which the deletion nominator has invoked here, then in attempting to rebut an Afd rationale, you cannot very well expect to validly argue to keep an article by pointing out how it doesn't violate some other exclusion criteria that the nominator never mentioned, can you? That is why your post was a strawman. This is a step up from WP:NOTAVOTE I grant you, but it's still basic Afd procedural stuff nonetheless, so I fail to see how I've embarassed myself by pointing it out. MickMacNee (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for invalidating DustFormsWords "delete" vote as "purple flying monkeys" which is kind of what it was and everyone is perfectly allowed to counter a bad argument and there is no requirement to answer the nominator's deletion rational. None. We should explain why we think an article should be kept or deleted and this article passing WP:GNG (has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject) is a very strong explanation of why this should be kept. Thanks for agreeing with me on a "delete" vote's week argument. --Oakshade (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't agree with you on anything, that's in your imagination. Your idea of what constitues a "very strong" argument, is ironically, pretty weak. Anyone can copy and paste that magic phrase into any Afd, it takes no particular skill, except keyboard skills, and left there just like that as a rationale, it's pure and simply argument by assertion - it means nothing without providing specific evidence and examples with reference to the specific article, and without expansion in your own words it doesn't even prove that you really know what the words even mean in this context. If you honestly think that in an Afd you are not required to answer the nominator's reason for deletion, well, for one, it's hard to even put into words how wrong that is beyond what I've already explained at length above, but let's just settle on the inevitable outcome of that approach to an Afd - the article just gets deleted, because you cannot by definition have a consensus emerge here that the nominator was wrong and his argument was defeated, if you just pretend it doesn't even exist. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference how many people shout from the rooftops in here that 'it meets the GNG', 'it meets the GNG', the nomination reason takes that into account - you do not get to ignore EVENT by simply meeting the GNG, you do not get around WP:NOT by meeting the GNG, and you do not even prove that it meets the GNG by simply saying that it meets the GNG. I've addressed that specific claim elsewhere in here w.r.t. this specific article's sources btw, if you are sticking to your guns that all you need to do in an Afd is prove it meets the GNG, despite what even the GNG page says to the contrary, then you might want to start showing how you disagree with my analysis of the sources, with respect to how they even meet the GNG - i.e., their independence, their depth, their originality, and their multiplicity. MickMacNee (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Now that was a bunch of purple flying monkeys. Not only did the nom not take into account WP:GNG, you actually want to the reason why it passes WP:GNG explained out to you again? Just the very in-depth secondary independent sources spanning years already in the article alone are clear indications of passing WP:GNG. I can't believe I actually had to type that for you. Point to me any "requirement" that we have to counter a nom's rationale. Any. Besides, the topic easily meets WP:AIRCRASH (hull loss, for one example), the nom's states reason for deletion. And it easily meets WP:EVENT. The NTSB report explains extensively about shortcomings of safety procedures on several fronts, from the air traffic control actions to poorly trained FedEx employees. And sorry MickMacNee, the NTSB is "WP:N worthy evidence". WP:N even states so; "reports by government agencies"[20] Attempt Wikilawyering all you want (for our amusement), but you're not convincing. --Oakshade (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've lost me now, I have no idea what you are on about anywmore. The nom did not take into account the GNG? Why did he start the Afd by saying "Not a notable incident" then? I don't want the reason you think it meets the GNG copied and pasted yet again, I want to see you attempt to show you know what you are talking about when you blindly type 'this clearly meets the GNG'. It's not too much of an onerous task for you, surely? You can say it 'easily' meets this or that as much as you like, it's meaningless. You've finally tried to make a start at that it seems, by mentioning specific sources and policy points at least, but no, NTSB reports are simply not defacto WP:N sources just because they come from the government - to assert otherwise is a complete logical fallacy, they are produced for every single aircrash by a legal duty, irrespective of size, fatalities, impact, or any of the things that are recognised in AIRCRASH as making crashes notable, 95% of which never even meet the preconditions in AIRCRASH like hull losses etc. If all you needed to pass the GNG for an aircrash article was an NTSB report, then quite clearly we can just rip up AIRCRASH right now as a worthless piece of junk, and simply declare all crashes always 'easily meet the GNG', and turn Wikipedia into a mirror of the NTSB database, as clearly WP:NOT violating as that sounds. And because an NTSB report is not an WP:N worthy source, it is completely irrelevant for EVENT. All you are left with then is one source, a news summary of the report published on the day it came out. That's it, that's your case for 'in-depth', significant coverage 'spanning years' and showing that these changes are considered truly significant and of true, lasting notability. It's not sustainable at all. Frankly, there is not an NTSB report out there that does not make recommendations for changes or highlight errors, that's another logical fallacy on display here with all this talk of what is 'easily' this and 'easily' that, the whole point of requiring true GNG type coverage to meet EVENT is to prove without resorting to assertion and primary sources, that the real world believes they were significant, and to show that they really did have a lasting impact, making it a notable event in the encyclopoedic sense, rather than the NTSB sense. As for this idea that you do not have to address the nomination, from the Afd instructions: "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination" - that makes it pretty clear. It also states, "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator" - that's a bit of an bizarre thing to have in the instructions, if you are allowed to pretend the nomination doesn't exist, no? I can if you like post a poll at WP:TALK AFD, such as 'are people as a minimum in an Afd, required to address the deletion nomination given by the nominator?' Yes or No? But frankly, I can't see that ending as anything other than a landslide yes. MickMacNee (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have no idea what your arguments are since they're 100% self-contradictory. By my minor accident of including the word "not" in "Not only did the nom not take into account WP:GNG", you just explained in explicit detail why I'm supposed to respond to the nom's rationale (meeting GNG - "The nom did not take into account the GNG? Why did he start the Afd by saying "Not a notable incident" then?") and at the same time you admit in explicit detail that's exactly what I did (meeting GNG) and then went off on arguing my rationale of why it meets GNG. So much for that original straw man accusation. To get to your one argument that's not self-contradictory, if you want to change WP:NOTABILITY to not accept government reports as significant coverage by reliable sources, you need to make your case in the WP:NOTABILITY talk page, not push your agenda in a specific AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your strawman was the extensive rebuttal of an imaginary NOT#NEWS nomination. Your tacked on vaguewave to the GNG at the end of it, does not count as a rebuttal, and I've explained at length by now, how and why you haven't given a proper argument that 'this easily meets then GNG' at all yet. You started to try in the next to last post, and the merits of that attempt can be assessed by the closer. But seriously, I have no need to go and ask WP:N to be changed, as it's beyond obvious that in this specific case, treating the mere existence of an NTSB report as defacto notability leads to a logical fallacy breaks so many other content policies, and logic itself, that it makes the assertion pretty weak. Infact, it is an assertion that ignores the fact that the GNG is a presumption - even if using an NTSB report meant it met the GNG, which it doesn't, then it would still fail the presumption clause - the GNG, a guideline, is a test of presumed notability, even if it's met, you still have to demonstrate how this article does not violate WP:NOT, a policy, and as the nominator stated in his rationale, "wikipedia is not a list of aircraft hull losses". MickMacNee (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempt to save face with your 100% flip-flopping is not working (for a 2nd time). And since you value this WP:VAGUEWAVE essay section so much, I'm sure you'll counter Korruski's "delete" vote above which is the epitome of VAGUEWAVE... Or could it me you don't really value it and just applying it to those who disagree with you? And I've already explained in explicit detail how this meets GNG (Korruski actually even states it passes GNG). Just because of your failure to understand the most basic principals of WP:N and WP:GNG, I'm not going to cut and paste all the extensive coverage that this incident received just because a a single user is suffering from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Oakshade (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could care less what Korruski has said, it's of no relevance to whether your argument is poor or not. I will say it one last time, by simply copying and pasting the phrasing of the GNG page here, much less repeating it endlessly, you are not showing you understand its meaning at all, let alone proving it has been met by this article (not that this is the only requirement either, but you clearly want to sidestep that issue forever). That's not explicit detail, that is not even detail tbh, it's one step up from a simple vote. From the very beginning I've given cogent and logical arguments as to how this article is not easily meeting anything, with reference to all applicable policies, and in addition, with reference to the actual sources present in the article, aswell as with reference to the basic facts of aviation in general, and how they obviously and logicaly relate to both real world and encyclopoedic notability, and by extension, WP:NOT. What have you offered in reply exactly, to be making such ludicrous accusations like IDIDNTHEARTHAT? As for this idea that VAGUEWAVE is ignorable because it's part of a (widely accepted and well understood) essay, see my advice to Bushranger. MickMacNee (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for admitting that you don't in fact value VAGUEWAVE and just throwing it at editors that don't agree with you (which is most). To demand that I cut and paste the entire NTSB report and all the extensive coverage this topic has received which are already in the article into this AfD to show how it passes GNG is absurd and a sign of your desperation to save face. Sorry, I'm done with you. Have some predictable lame ranting last word. It won't mean you've won an argument and it will serve as demonstration of an editor wasting their time when they should devote attention to creating and improving articles. --Oakshade (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You keep claiming that I've admitted this, or agreed with that, or contradicted this and flipped that, and I've done nothing of the sort, as anyone can see. Now you are claiming that what I am apparently demanding of you here is that you must cut and paste the entire text of the sources into this Afd? This is utterly wrong, all of it, as anyone who knows anything about Afd would know. Lord knows I've tried to set you straight on how to actually 'win' the argument, if that was at all possible given the state of this article, but if anything, it's me that's done wasting my time here. I just think you really don't know what argument by assertion actualy is, and certainly don't seem to know why it's wrong, and AGF or not, if anyone has been pointlessly and desperately ranting here as some sort of time-wasting replacement for actually making a valid argument, it's you. MickMacNee (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as of user Mjroots. "severity of the accident gives sufficient notability" Elmao (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Commercial cargo flight hull-loss accident, with ongoing ramifications for crewmember emergency evacuation training which applies to both cargo and passenger aircraft. Reliable sources available. N419BH 06:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Based on some of the arguments for keeping, the article appears to be in severe need of editing to actually include some of these reasons for keeping. --Born2flie (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. It's frankly shocking how many users voting keep here have seemingly never even read the revelant destructions for the process - WP:AFD#How to discuss an Afd. Making up your own notability standards, or making other similar blind assertions not backed up by any references to that effect, are certainly not an example of giving a policy backed argument, and neither is dumping a per him type vote here, referencing those exact poor arguments, as a replacement for giving their own reasoning. I hope the closer recognises this, and comments appropriately in his closing statement, otherwise, as pointless as it usually is, this will go for review. MickMacNee (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's 2010, nearly 2011, not 2006. Infact, WP:EVENT was written in 2009, reflecting the evolution of Wikipedia's understanding of notability. And per that evolved understanding of notability, it's pretty clear that 'keep, it's got sources', just doesn't cut it any more, not for aircrashes, or any other type of historical event. I'm not interested in how poor other Afd's still are, that's most due to nobody not giving enough of a toss to expect better, at least from closers, as well as many voters never reading the manual before chiming in (not that a clusterfuck over cats with diplomas is a good comparison to an EVENT Afd, this Afd is a much better example, and in no small part to the fact it was closed by an admin who had to pass his Rfa giving answers reflecting the Wikipedia environment of 2009, not 2003, although even that Afd is not directly comparable either, being a news Afd about an ongoing event). Other crap is crap can be applied just as well to the procedural areas of Wikipedia as to the article space, the only relevant set point are the instructions themselves, which are more than clear with regard to vague referrals to the existence of 'some' sources, and the other practices I detailed. MickMacNee (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mick, you do realise that 1. both the WP:PERNOM and WP:VAGUEWAVE you're so fond of accusing (and I use that word quite deliberately) other editors of using, in a "you pernommed/vaguewaved thus your opinion is invalid" way, are not part of those "instructions" or Wikipedia policies, but are merely part of an essay, and 2. your "this will go for review" comment can easily be read as "If things don't go the way I think they should I'll raise a stink"? Also, your comments here and in other aircrash AFDs at times push the boundaries of WP:CIVIL, and certainly show a distinct lack of good faith in your fellow Wikipedians. We're here to build an encyclopedia that is WP:NOTPAPER and is the sum total of human knowledge, not debate whether or not we're following proper procedure in deciding whether something that is notable is notable ENOUGH to be included - and certainly not to be lectured about how We're Doing It Wrong. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh? From WP:NOTPAPER - "this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars.". As much as it's always been a good catchphrase, 'building the sum of all knowledge' has never been a content policy, or an inclusion criteria (we don't have any, just exclusion criteria, like EVENT, which like it or not, is how we decide whether things are notable enough or not). And I don't know what instructions you've been reading, by my copy states: "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies.", and "valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements", and "a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines" aswell as "make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" and "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy" And I've barely even gotten part way down the page at this point. So, if your argument is that you can ignore all of that just because PERNOM and VAGUEWAVE is an essay, then if it makes you feel any better, when you see me say PERNOM or VAGUEWAVE, then substitute it in your internal monologue with the parts of the instructions that they are clearly derived from, i.e. make your own arguments, make them referring to policy, and don't make them as blind assertions. We are not paper, but that does not mean people have to write the same objections out long hand every single time, instead of using shortcuts that mean the exact same thing. I can assume good faith in someone trying to argue an Afd point properly, but in a content policy misguided way, but I cannot assume good faith in people who try to argue an Afd by throwing out PERNOMS and VAGUEWAVES, and then when challenged on that, pretending that those are in anyway decent arguments or per the instructions, and then throwing out NOTPAPER and accusations of incivilty for good measure, as if that helps your case. My review comment is a statement of procedural fact, take it to WP:WQA if you feel otherwise, but I can tell you now, you would be wasting your time. MickMacNee (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the NTSB report brief states the flight was indeed a commercial revenue-generating flight conducted under 14 CFR 121 (the same regulations under which passenger flights are conducted by U.S. air carriers). Also note the airframe damage in that brief: "Aircraft Damage: Destroyed". So we have reliable sources for a commercial aircraft accident which destroyed a large airplane. N419BH 03:30, 11 December 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shahmaran

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

Both sources appear to be unreliable, and contradictory. Delete for lack of notability and reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 03:55, 9 December 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 00:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmin Agović

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has never played in a fully pro league." PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played two matches in the non-fully pro Montenegrin First League. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:53, 9 December 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 00:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones (child actor)

[edit]
Alex Jones (child actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Child actor whose first tv show has not yet been released. No other on-screen roles except for a music video. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 03:00, 9 December 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionism

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Evolutionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary says we shouldn't have articles on individual words. (Although of course there are some exceptions.) In this case it's a minor word which doesn't get used much and doesn't even have a definite meaning, being used to mean different things by different people. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Anybody interested in reality might begin with the rather straightforward text: Carneiro, Robert, Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology: A Critical History ISBN 0-8133-3766-6.

It is interesting to see how the evolutionist sects have managed to erase the truth that they hate. But I will not object--no more than I would object whether the Christians or the Muslims win the Crusades. Rednblu (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Dr. Carneiro seems to be talking about people who believe in Sociocultural evolution.Steve Dufour (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Carneiro definitely is not talking about belief. Rednblu (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...Maybe I should have said something like "people who tend to focus on societal development in their social anthropological studies." Or perhaps I miss the whole point of his book title. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked out Dr. Carneiro's article, thanks for the link. He seems to describe his own theories about the rise of civilizations as "evolutionism." If the article is kept this use of the word should probably be mentioned too. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: the article documents and discusses, with third party sources, a fairly prominent creationist claim that evolution is an ideology or religion (an "-ism"). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that evolutionism means different things to different people is what makes the article more than a dictionary definition. The term has a history, and is used as a weapon in the creation-evolution wars. The article will remain of minor significance, but it has no policy problems. Sorry to go offtopic, but I noticed some changes at Evolution (term) which may interest people here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the politics behind the term may be wonky, but the fact of its existence and notability seems be inarguable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Far more than a dicdef. The fact that (in the nominator's words) it "doesn't even have a definite meaning, being used to mean different things by different people" is precisely what makes the concept/phenomenon worthy of an article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion seems over-the-top to me, but at least, the use of the term "evolutionist" needs reconsideration in this article. An evolutionist may be a scientist who studies evolution (just like a biologist is a scientist who studies biology), or someone who (passively) adheres to the theory that organisms do evolve over time (which is the case for 97% of the scientists but for a significantly smaller percentage of non-scientists, according to a source cited in the article), or someone who actively promotes evolutionary thinking (like Richard Dawkins). Apart from these three fairly neutral meanings, there is of course the non-neutral use of the term by some creationists. 132.229.234.111 (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with thanks to the nominator for his courtesy notification, but incomprehension at his nomination. Per comments above, more than a dic-def. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Creation–evolution controversy and merge any content that may be useful. I'm going by the example of the abortion-related pages on Wikipedia - "anti-choice," for example, redirects to "abortion debate" rather than redirecting to "pro-life" or having its own page. Since "evolutionism" is a term used by opponents of teaching evolution, I think the same treatment would make sense. Roscelese (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea to me. The main fact the article presents, that creationists use the word "evolutionism" to put down people who disagree with them, is certainly notable and should be given on WP. I just think that a dedicated article on the word itself is against "not a dictionary." Steve Dufour (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection is a bad idea, I believe. As the first alinea of the article indicates, the term "evolutionism" has or at least had a meaning apart from the Creation–evolution controversy. 132.229.117.120 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other meanings of the word could be explained in other articles.Steve Dufour (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which one would never see if coming by the proposed merge/redirect. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 01:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evolutionism Steve Dufour (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this context? Not much. See also http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/human. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Christianity etc etc ad nauseum. Any one word titled Wikipedia article has a corresponding wiktionary entry. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 08:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP has an article on Christianity (to use one of your examples), it could also have an article on the word "Christian" since the word itself is important enough. Right now it has an article on the word "evolutionism", it doesn't have an article on evoluntionism itself since (as I mentioned in the nomination) the word has various meanings. The way it seems to be used in social science might well be more notable than its use by creationists, which is the main focus of the article now. Steve Dufour (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, you are right. Struck "Speedy" above. SnottyWong spout 20:48, 14 December 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) 05:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ephraim Shapiro

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ephraim Shapiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. He was not notable during his life. He only came to public attention when allegations against him were made after his death. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the allegations only raise him to the level of a common criminal, still far from the importance of van Gogh and Dickinson. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "notable means having reliable sources" – incorrect. Sources are a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. The sufficient conditions are listed in the various well-defined notability guidelines – see WP:BIO. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply a "clergyman" of a congregation was also a headteacher. There's nothing notable here. Would seem to fail WP:BIO. There are no notable books or publications. So he seems to fail any notability guideline. After his death there were some accusations? So what? It might be fine to use him as an example on a wider article on child abuse in American Judaism or something. But really? Someone point me to a notability guideline he passes? Sure there are some news stories connected with the allegations - but you get that for any such.--Scott Mac 09:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really a person of no lasting importance. It would be normal for 700 people to attend the funeral of a clergyman or a professor. The event of allegations of sexual abuse being made against him later does not make his life notable. Also there is no way to prove or disprove the charges now (although I am inclined to believe them myself.) Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTSCANDAL. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This person is not just notable for a single event. There is reliably sourced information during his lifetime of him being a spiritual leader, found in book publications, long before the posthumous scandal of his molestation came out. So this article cannot be deleted over a single event issue. The BLP guidelines cannot be applied either because he is deceased. NOTSCANDAL is also an invalid argument here because this article is filled with sourced information, not just whoever coming on and writing their feelings of a person. The person who gave the NOTSCANDAL argument did not explain why that is applicable either. Xyz7890 (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly true, but we hardly lack good reasons to delete this - like failing every notability guideline we have, dead or alive.--Scott Mac 23:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible compromise It looks like most people who have commented here have already said delete already, and tomorrow will be one week since this discussion has been opened. I have come up with an idea. There are some articles that already exist and are well accepted such as Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States and Day care sex abuse hysteria that do not cover the sex abuse of a particular individual, but an overall situation in which a large number of people affiliated with a group have been involved or accused of sex abuse, and it has become a major news story. Likewise, the case of Ephraim Shapiro being posthumously accused of child molestation was written up in the BJT and other papers as part of a larger issue of sex abuse within the Jewish community in which there were other offenders.

My idea is to not totally delete this page on the 16th, but to leave this discussion open at least a few more days while others can discuss this possibility. This article can simply be moved to a title like Jewish community sex abuse or similar, and other information can be added to the current content. Deleting it totally would make the current content inaccessible, and thereby hinder the effort to create such a page. Xyz7890 (talk) 23:53, 15 December 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issues of merging, moving, rewriting or what have you can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Planet killer

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Planet killer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article that is chock full of Original Research and appears to have no sense of defining purpose. Also, a renomination per the recommendation of a 2007 AFD discussion available at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet killer . Sadads (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - Something that's been troubling me about this one is that I don't think it should have been an AFD. The problem is with the content of the article which we can fix via editing. Delete section 2 (Planet killers in fiction) and that'll resolve most of the issues with this article. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is about the right of the article to exist, not the information that is in it. Just a list about episodes list all episodes, not just the ones notable enough to have their own articles. Dream Focus 02:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as List of fictional doomsday devices, redirect "planet killer" to doomsday device, and merge the list of fictional examples from that page into this one. This list now covers many varieties of doomsday weapons, some of which I would not call planet killers. It makes more sense for this article to be named as a list of fictional examples supporting the other article. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose a rename This would only be taking this article from a borderline-unencyclopedic subject to a thoroughly unencyclopedic one. The proposed "list of planet killers" has no encyclopedic merit and it would be impossible to write an article on the list without using original research. If this article would be kept, at the very least we should remove the entire "planet killer in fiction" section. Nothing but listcruft and original research in there.ThemFromSpace
It wouldn't be original research to list things found in notable media which can destroy an entire planet. Dream Focus 04:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it would be, unless you have reliable sources (not just the works themselves) refer to the planet killer as a "planet killer". ThemFromSpace 06:04, 16 December 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 00:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
List of references to guns and butter in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Miscellaneous trivia. WP:NOTADIR. Bulldog123 01:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 23:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other Minds (music)

[edit]
Other Minds (music) (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 make a claim to notability, and it seems clear that it does not pass WP:CLUB as the organization is not national - as the article also contains no third person sources, and no other articles link toit, it seems reasonable to question its notability and as whether it has been created mostly for promotional purposes.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:31, 9 December 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 00:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michonne Bourriague

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

Fails WP:ENT. No notability as a model, only one minor role as an actress. Only source is IMDb.  Mbinebri  talk ← 17:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:30, 9 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Kamali Dehghan

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Saeed Kamali Dehghan (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)

Some claim to importance, but few sources to indicate notability. Passed a previous AfD but with very few comments, so a wider debate might be better. KorruskiTalk 14:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Are you sure that the FPA award is "significant and well-known"?Farhikht (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:30, 9 December 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. Courcelles 00:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biju Pappan

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

Fails WP:BIO, BLP sources are personal website and IMDB jsfouche ☽☾ talk 14:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:29, 9 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thorny Lea Golf Club

[edit]
Thorny Lea Golf Club (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 golf club with little claim to notability, and Google shows just more advertising on their website than any coverage in independent, reliable third-party sourcing. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:29, 9 December 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 00:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson W. Greybuffalo

[edit]
Johnson W. Greybuffalo (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 any reliable sources for this person or the murder he committed, it seems like a WP:BLP1E. Mattg82 (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional comment: OK I have found a few sources but they are behind paywalls, and they are only local newspapers. No nationwide coverage found so far and no book sources apart from WP sourced publications. Mattg82 (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:29, 9 December 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. Courcelles 00:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Fahim Dashty

[edit]
Mohammad Fahim Dashty (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)

Lack of sources in reliable publications. There are a few mentions here or there, but that is to be expected from a journalist. But overall, he doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. NW (Talk) 02:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems very significant as a journalist wounded in action, so part of the story on his own, besides being a probably notable journalist on his own. "When Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated in northern Afghanistan two days before the September 11 Attacks, Dashty was working on a biography of the late commander, and was injured as well." I recall reading about this case. I think there is significant coverage. The AFD proposal, by the way, appears to be bad-faith in the sense that the proposer is going around on a random set of articles that a different editor blanked as part of a weird campaign, and which i unblanked. I don't expect the proposer knows anything much about this random topic area (nor do i). But, I am not making major edits like blanking or proposing AFD. And i am not disrupting wikipedia to make some point about there being imperfect articles out there. Bottom line about this one anyhow: seems significant; nominator mentions there are news mentions to be found. I oppose deletion. --doncram (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:28, 9 December 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. Courcelles 00:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July, July

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. No references or mention of importance. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:27, 9 December 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 00:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho Grow

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Author does not have article. No references, no mention of importance, PROD was endorsed by other editor as well for same reason. PROD was removed without addressing concerns. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:27, 9 December 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 00:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Molloy

[edit]
Jamie Molloy (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 Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#College_athletes, as he was merely inducted to the Syracuse Hall of Fame. Doesn't appear to have any other significant sources about him. NW (Talk) 04:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:25, 9 December 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 00:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Sanchez

[edit]
Hazel Sanchez (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)

Local news reporter; does not meet our general inclusion criteria, which requires significant coverage. NW (Talk) 04:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:24, 9 December 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) 05:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swound!

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Swound! (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 band make a lot of borderline claims to notability, but it's not clear to me if they actually pass WP:BAND. Inviting discussion from the community. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:21, 9 December 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 00:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T.A. Sedlak

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO other than personal website, only trivial mention jsfouche ☽☾Talk 11:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:21, 9 December 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 00:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Bonhomme

[edit]
Tim Bonhomme (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)

He may tour with a major band, but he doesn't seem to actually be part of that band. No evidence of independent notability. NW (Talk) 15:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete: Some sources available but they only mention him in passing, saying nothing substantial. Mattg82 (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:52, 11 December 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 Bangon na, Bayan!. Spartaz Humbug! 10:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Reyes Zobel

[edit]
Joel Reyes Zobel (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)

Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:13, 9 December 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 00:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuhei Hasegawa

[edit]
Shuhei Hasegawa (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)

Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:12, 9 December 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 00:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quakers & Business

[edit]
Quakers & Business (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 WP:ORG. Created by editor with a conflict of interest. Another version with a slightly different name was speedy deleted. References given are not about the organisation but by them. Google does not show anything of note to establish notability. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sources in the article do not constitute significant discussion in reliable independent sources (mostly through not being independent) and my good faith searches were unable to uncover any that do. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:07, 9 December 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) 05:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhairav (2001 film)

[edit]
Bhairav (2001 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)

Fails WP:MOVIE jsfouche ☽☾ talk 18:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I'm hoping User:Sodabottle swings by after the holidays. He's a whiz at Indian cinema. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain why you think this should be kept? This is supposed to be an attempt to achieve consensus by discussion, not a vote-counting exercise. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_December_9&oldid=1142642043"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy