Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 3

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 2 August 4 August >

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 merge to Zulu (film). –Juliancolton | Talk 00:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical inaccuracies in the film Zulu

edit
Historical inaccuracies in the film Zulu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant collection of OR and TRIVIA. Content fork which manifestly fails our own policies and guidelines about how to handle such information, including MOSFILM. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Merging is not appropriate: it's well-established Wiki policy that articles on films must be confined to sources which relate specifically to the film and criticism thereof and cannot bring in general history. And the issue of the accuracy (or not) of films or plays or books depicting actual events is an entirely appropriate subject for Wiki articles: a perfectly valid branch of human knowledge, and one for which there is most assuredly public need or demand. Virtually any viewer of a "historical" film wonders to a greater or lesser degree "but how 'true' was it?" whether Zulu or Valkyrie or Titanic. If the complaint is based on OR, then what is needed is citation tags, not elimination. I partially agree with RUL3R: "Historical inaccuracies in X work of fiction" ought to be an article class, and one maintained separate from the main article on "X work of fiction," in which external comparisons are inappropriate. (NB: "Trivia" is in the eye of the beholder. WP's mission is broadly inclusive, not exclusive.) Solicitr (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia might be broadly inclusive, but lists of miscellaneous facts and original research are explicitly forbidden. I think it should be deleted, but, at best, this mess deserves a few lines in the main article for the film, after it has been heavily cleaned up, converted to prose, and sourced. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 14:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it requires cleanup and sourcing badly: but it *cannot* be merged into the main article; nor is it a 'miscellany' as you put it save in its lack of organization and encyclopedic form. Solicitr (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @037  ·  23:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the film's page. A section under this header is appropriate there, but hopefully it will be treated better than a few pages of listcruft. ThemFromSpace 03:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to the main article on the film. I see no reason why it cannot be merged, nor is it a list of miscellaneous facts; it's a list of historical inaccuracies, and that is a proper part of the discussion of every notable historical fiction. If the film wikiproject thinks otherwise, that instance of OWNership should be rejected by the wider community. No one project gets to make policy. As I see it, it's an intrinsic part of discussing the plot, and a good example of real-world information, which we generally encourage in articles on fiction. DGG (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Zulu (film), it is a POV fork. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth would this be a POV fork, "an attempt to evade the neutrality policy"? Solicitr (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's basically "things the film got wrong" without explicitly saying so. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Things the film got wrong" isn't POV if they are objectively wrong, not just someone's opinion. The anachronistic use of WWI Webley Mk VI revolvers is a fact, not a point of view. Solicitr (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And why would you need to point that out in an article about a film that by its nature cannot accurately portray reality? Unless tons of reliable sources explicitly discuss inaccuracies in the film (that is, a source says "Zulu incorrectly portrayed this fact", not "Zulu got this wrong; this source says this really happened . . .", there's no need to document them. By the way, a number of sources don't look acceptable, and quite a few others are used to synthesize arguments. The article is a big POV mess. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - It's not a POV fork, but it's an unnecessary fork. Shadowjams (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pingfatzu

edit
Pingfatzu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An esoteric philosophy, so esoteric that it produces scarcely any Google hits. It has received short shrift on the Portuguese Wikipedia having been speedied three times (incomprehensible, no context, etc.). Igor Buys, the author of the article mentions himself in it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:33, 3 August 2009 (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 guideline for amateur players is that they need to be successful at a national level and the argument that they aren't hasnt been refuted Spartaz Humbug! 08:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Carter (golfer)

edit
Pat Carter (golfer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reason the page should be deleted Abc518 (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear. Are you saying the articles on 13 time major winner and HoF member Bobby Jones, and 1913 US Open champion Ouimet should be nominated for deletion? I sure hope not. And if someone is not noteworthy, it is irrelevant whether they are alive or not, so why the reticence in nominating their articles? Finally, amateur golf probably should have it's own article, or at least a section in amateur sports. wjematherbigissue 22:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Kind of a tough one. There are no google news hits, ESPN's got nothing (except for the wide receiver, who's a different guy). Seems like he's done well in some tournaments, and I might even entertain that amateur golf is a non-league kind of "top level". With this kind of ambiguity I'd defer to the guidelines at WP:Athlete. He doesn't meet them. Shadowjams (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not because amateur golf in itself is unworthy of inclusion, as suggested above, but because he's not sufficiently successful within it. The article notes he has qualified for the US Amateur, as good a benchmark as there is, 12 times, but never bettered the quarter-finals. Nor has he progressed further than that in the U.S. Mid-Amateur, which is a weaker competition. On the national level he is a good player, but not spectacular - it may just be that his competition at local level is unusually weak. EJBH (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atticus: ...Dragging the Lake, Vol. 4

edit
Atticus: ...Dragging the Lake, Vol. 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence that this release actually exists. See record label website: [1] Nouse4aname (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ATTICUS WEBSITE: http://civvies.biz/atticususa/product.php?productid=16237&cat=274&page=1 http://www.civvies.biz/atticususa/home.php I do not know how to cite things on Wikipedia but I can inform you I purchased this compilation album from an Atticus merchandise tent during the Vans Warped Tour this month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.147.34 (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you know how to cite sources or not because that source would be deleted as unreliable. Read WP:RS to see why. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unreliable: as the online outlet of Atticus clothing, it's a good source which goes towards verifiability. 86.44.29.180 (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think so. Deleted by Prod [2]. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:14, 3 August 2009 (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 Adam Copeland.  Skomorokh  16:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edge a decade of decadence

edit
Edge a decade of decadence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reads like a movie review. Fails WP:N. NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 06:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:02, 3 August 2009 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Ababadjani

edit
AfDs for this article:
Maya Ababadjani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject of this article does not apparently meet the WP:Pornbio criteria, nor does this article otherwise appear to be about a notable subject. The standards for porn actor notability have been increased since the previous, 2008 nomination for deletion, when no consensus was achieved. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete This woman had a brief & minor career in pornography. She has won no awards. Her three references include two links to Danish language porn sites (one which showed me an image of a woman with a man's penis protruding from her mouth, as soon as I clicked on it), which would almost certainly not be regarded as notable sources, while her other reference is a link to another Danish language site that also doesn't appear to be a notable source (such as a major newspaper from Copenhagen, or whatnot). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement for the sources themselves to pass notability. The requirement is that they be reliable and independent. WP:RS. Horrorshowj (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:55, 3 August 2009 (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. JForget 00:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nouveau Riche (real estate investment college)

edit
Nouveau Riche (real estate investment college) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unaccredited, obscure college, with very little news coverage as far as I can see. Most ghits are sites run by the school itself. Fails WP:ORG. —Chowbok ☠ 00:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:47, 3 August 2009 (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. per nominator, notability does not (typically) extend to anyone involved in a work. Consensus is to delete. tedder (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mowry

edit
Chris Mowry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No third-party evidence of notability. While the principal creator/illustrator for notable comics might be notable, that doesn't mean everyone on the production team is. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he has authored bokos currfently for sale on amazon. under ISBN-13: 978-1600104572 and ISBN-10: 1600104576. He is notable.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 22 books he is credited too as an author. All in the transformer universe. On whatr grounds is he not notable?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case though he is a credited comic author and the series were licensed for use by the Transformers. I think that makes him notable unless you think they are letting crap authors do their work. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being licensed by the owners of the Transformers name does not make the series notable, either. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Perhaps you'd like to explain how the person isn;t notable. He authored the tie in series between the 2 movies so I'm drawing a blank here.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Axiom stack

edit
Axiom stack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NN technology. {{Findsourcesnotice}} turns only promotional pieces (press releases). Part of a series of articles placed by AXIOM SPA COI editors. Failed Speedy Deletion as spam / G11. Toddst1 (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:42, 3 August 2009 (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 Cheers, I'mperator 21:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LG15: The Last

edit
LG15: The Last (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It is the latest spin-off of the lonelygirl15 web-series, but I can only find one third party source on this, so seems to fail the general WP:NOTABILITY+WP:WEB guidelines. I guess after so many spin off series of the show, people have completely lost interest and nobody even bothers reporting it.--Otterathome (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: An official social show for entertainment company EQAL's LG15 Franchise (not just a spin-off). Professionally produced and featured on the popular LG15.com. Executively produced by EQAL. Comprehensive plot, and very good acting from the cast. Notable in the fact that Jonas Wharton (main character from EQAL's lonelygirl15 and LG15: The Resistance; minor character from EQAL's KateModern and N1ckola) emails one of the main characters in the pilot episode and is seen in one of the first episodes. Kayvahn (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your personal opinion of how good the show is contributes nothing to the notability and verifiability of the article. And Jones Wharton character, played by Jackson Davis is also up for deletion as he has had only minor roles and hasn't actually starred in anything notable.--Otterathome (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Otterathome, you nominated Jackson Davis (and other lg15 related articles) for deletion, but obviously lonelygirl15 itself is notable. (Though I remember when the lonelygirl15 article WAS deleted off wikipedia in the summer of 2006, which was ridiculous and reversed soon afterwards as it was one of the biggest internet hoaxes of all time.) Now, as to LG15: The Last, I believe it can/should meet the requirements of notability, I will look to see if i can add any helpful edits to convince you of this. --Milowent (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two sources you added are Blogspot.com websites, only reliable non-primary ones can establish notability.--Otterathome (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's this rule on blogspot sites? At least these aren't cat blogs, but sites dedicated to covering webseries. The "Web and 1" is written by Andy Asensio, who is also a TV critic for Zap2it. In any event, I added two more references to cites that are not blogspot sites. --Milowent (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Blogspot sites are not reliable sources. The tubefilter.tv source doesn't mention this spin off, and the newteevee.com just mentions it in the second last sentence so is still trivial.--Otterathome (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Blogspot sites are not reliable sources" - not trying to be difficult, can you cite me support for that? That seems to be overbroad. Tubefilter is talking about the whole TSIY project, of which The Last was the winner. The crowdsourced creation of this show is notable, as its the first of its kind that i'm aware of. --Milowent (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Look, this is something that exists. It's difficult to find sources because it's completely internet-based. Yes, it's a spinoff, but one that is featured on the LG15 website, along with the original shows. I don't know all the rules about deleting articles, but could someone please simply explain to me why this article should not be on wikipedia? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.114.190 (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This source is useful and should not be deleted as pointed out by Milowent, has information regarding a webseries. Yes it is a spin off but it is unique as it is the first to take place within Australia. Once the series is complete I am sure that there will be more reviews and articles to be added to the page. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.250.46 (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia isn't an archive of everything, see WP:ITSUSEFUL. If it is "unique as it is the first to take place within Australia." then you'd need a source to back up that. But sadly there isn't any.--Otterathome (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe LG15: The Last meets the standards of notability to be on Wikipedia. Its been cited in a number of articles, and is unique as the first webseries by fans, based on an establish mythology, that has been raised to the status of an official show as opposed to "fan fiction" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.61.191 (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The source argument is ridiculous. That's like saying you can't write an article on Christopher Columbus because all you have are his personal diaries. The original source trumps any need for third party sources. I assume no one is arguing the notability of the original series lonelygirl15. The Last is a part of that franchise. If The Last is deleted then with it goes such gems as Joanie Loves Chachi, Archie Bunker's Place and Torchwood.--jenlight (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, so you're comparing a 15 century explorer with an internet show? What? Just because the original show was notable, that doesn't mean this can automatically bypass notability requirements, see WP:NRVE. And all those other shows you mentioned were actually broadcast on TV and have many notable actors in, while this doesn't have any.--Otterathome (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    lonelygirl15 is notable. This is a spinoff of it produced by the producers of lonelygirl15. The notability of the actors is not in question. Since the show belongs to a franchise already established to be notable it is notable. I don't really know how to explain this so you can understand it. Seeing as you have not one other person agreeing with you I'm not terribly worried.--jenlight (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If a company makes one notable service/production, that doesn't mean everything else related to it can automatically bypass the WP:NOTABILITY standards. You'd know this if you'd read WP:NRVE which I linked you to above.--Otterathome (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is the spin off from the successfull lonelygirl15 web series which is notable itself. I put forward the same arguements to keep as Jenlight and milowent. KindredPhantom (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I just defeated that argument.--Otterathome (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a very significant series in the history and development of web series. It represents one of the first instances where the nature of a canon mythology has been handed over to the fan base to continue and expand. For that reason alone this article must be kept.--Modelmotion (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have yet to see a reasonable policy-based argument for keeping this article. It is being referenced with sources that fail WP:RS, and it's clear that there aren't any available (a Google News search for this series comes up with absolutely nothing). There is no way for this article to satisfy WP:N. To the LG15 fans, this isn't a vote, you need to state how this article meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, not why you like the show. -- Atamachat 00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge: lonelygirl15 is notable for being the first widely recognized web series; its article has a list of 40 references asserting its notability. As such, LG15: The Last is notable in at least two ways:
  1. For being a spin-off of a famous franchise. Take a look a Star Trek: The Animated Series - it has a mere 22 episodes and was considered "decanonized" for decades - The Last has 45 episodes and never had its canoncy disputed. Both are spin-offs of popular franchises. TAS is allowed to stay. Or The Lone Gunmen - canceled after 12 episodes. Why is it notable? Because it's a spin-off of a famous franchise. Hell, look at The Fonz and the Happy Days Gang - that's a clear precedent for inclusion of LG15: The Last; it has the exact same format: It's a spin-off of a famous series with little content on the page. The difference is that The Last is relatively fresh, with, as this discussion demonstrates, active and eager fans who can improve the page - in other words, there's still a vast potential for improvement. Can you say the same about The Fonz and the Happy Days Gang? And yet, TFatHDG is allowed to stay.
  2. For being yet another ground breaking narrative concept by the same people who already redefined the way online entertainment is done once. Compare Microsoft's Project Natal - so far, it doesn't even exist for consumers. Yet, it's notable - why? Because it's a new, ground-breaking thing by a company which has done ground-breaking things in the past. The only difference is that Microsoft has billions of dollars in marketing money, and thus could place Natal in conferences and magazines, whereas EQAL doesn't have as deep pockets. Or compare the original iPhone page. At that point, the phone was merely an announcement - why was it notable? Because Apple had already revolutionized the MP3-player market, and now targeted a new sector. A company which previously revolutionized an industry set out to do it again. The situation is the same: EQAL has revolutionized the way web entertainment is done (frequently being described as a "pioneer"), and now they are going one step further, basically revolutionizing their own revolution. That is a notable decision in the history of this young form of entertainment, and, as such, deserves mention.
In addition the The Show Is Yours contest has been reported on by NewTeeVee twice, by Tubefilter and other sites. NewTeeVee and Tubefilter are primary news sources in the web series segment, with NewTeeVee hosting the industry event NewTeeVee Live, which lists Google, Yahoo, MySpace, Amazon, Apple, AT&T and countless other high-profile technology and media companies as its attendees, and Tubefilter hosting the Hollywood Web Television Meetup, among numerous other things both are involved in. All three sites linked were co-hosts of the Streamy Awards, testimony to their leading position in the industry around web entertainment. As such, at least the The Show Is Yours contest qualifies for WP:WEB under criterion 1: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.".
WP:INDISCRIMINATE states that, in order to not be regarded as an indiscriminate collection of information, "Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting." - LG15: The Last has information about the show's background, concise descriptions of the characters, as well as a plot synopsis. As such, it clearly fulfills the necessary standard to not be considered indiscriminately collected information. In addition, as mentioned above, the voters above me signify that the page is not abandoned in any way, so, as said, the page can always be improved to be even less indiscriminate - but only if it stays.
Summary: There is at least one clear precedent for pages of this type, as well as several precedents for short-lived spin-offs of famous series who get their own page. As such, the page should be kept simply by virtue of equality, based on precedent. WP:NOTPAPER applies as well, so given the obvious number of people who would like this page to stay, deleting it would serve no purpose and lead to a detrimental experience for users interested in the franchise. (Especially for the last part of the sentence, WP:IGNORE of course applies as well.)
Beyond that, even if LG15: The Last as a series should be deemed not notable, the The Show Is Yours concept is most definitely notable, as the canonical continuation of a franchise that has already been deemed notable - lonelygirl15. Not listing The Last anywhere would be like having a page on Buffy, but denying the existence of Angel. As such, even if the decision is made that The Last on its own is not notable, the information on the page should be merged into the lonelygirl15 article, rather than simply be deleted.
~Renegade - 80.171.83.58 (talk) 06:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of the sources you have given is about the show, the rest are about the competition. So it would be appropriate mentioning the competition in the lonelygirl15 article. And the only one mentioning the show name is a duplicate of the one I mentioned in my nomination [4] is the same as [5]. So we still have 1 non-trivial coverage source mentioning the actual show name, the rest are just about talking about the competition. Like I said above, if it is notable then why do we only have 1 source talking about the winners of this competition? Both the show and competition is a big WP:1E that never took off.--Otterathome (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, wrong: [6] mentions "The Last" even with a link to their pilot. If you want to count mentions, at least count correctly.
Secondly, just ignoring the multiple precedents for this kind of page I pointed out is not going to make them go away. It is very obvious that being a spin-off of a famous show is notable enough to gain a page or at least mention on Wikipedia, and no one doubts the fame of lonelygirl15. Logically, The Last deserves its page.
You also try to ignore the fact that The Last is the canonical continuation of a series that has already been deemed notable by Wikipedia. Removing information on The Last would automatically render Wikipedia's representation of lonelygirl15 incomplete.
Deletion is out of the question. Deletion would be akin to having pages on every season of the Simpsons, only to then randomly delete The Simpsons (season 21). Or writing about The Lord of the Rings and deleting the page on The Hobbit. lonelygirl15 is notable. That is undisputed. The Last is the canonical continuation of a notable franchise. Keeping information about it is required for the accurate representation of the LG15 franchise. The only question here is whether to keep or to merge.
So let's see: You nominated the page for deletion.
I provided several precedents for this type of page, as well as a logical argumentation for its inclusion based on its nature and creators; I pointed out that the page includes information that is necessary for the accurate description of a phenomenon already accepted as notable by Wikipedia. I directly cited the policy stating that the page does not count as an indiscriminate collection of information, and provided references that show that at least the competition this show embodies is notable, and that, as such, The Last deserves mention.
And what did you do?
You ignored everything I said and tried to get rid of it anyway, with a (false) count of phrases, culminating in "Both the show and competition is a big WP:1E that never took off.", which is pretty much just the experienced Wikipedian's version of WP:JNN. It's your opinion, about notability, based on a conveniently narrow subset of the argumentation that looks like the policy you cite could work with it. It ignores a variety of other factors that speak for the inclusion of this information, be it as an independent page or merged into lonelygirl15.
9 votes to keep versus 3 votes to delete. Multiple arguments based on both notability as well policy to keep it. And yet you insist on deleting it, disregarding all points made, disregarding general inclusion-friendly policies like WP:NOTPAPER and WP:IGNORE, disregarding the effects this deletion has on the completeness of other pages, and not even accepting merging as an option.
Scrolling up, it looks like you're the only one actually arguing for the deletion. Sure, Joe Chill and Atama dropped in to voice their opinion, but the only one who goes around and tries to dismiss other people's arguments is you. Out of 40 revisions for this page, 17 (42.5%) were made by you. What's your agenda here? Why exactly are you so hellbent on getting rid of this particular page, no matter what?
~ Renegade - 80.171.53.21 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because one show is notable, spin-offs of it don't automatically bypass WP:NOTABILITY, see WP:NRVE, which is what most of your argument appears to be based on. And it's WP:1E because of the lack of sources. [7] talks about the competition and spin-off's in general and mentions 'The Last' right at the end. And the publish dates between the two articles are February 6, 2009 & January 28, 2009. You'd think since then there'd be more sources? But no, it remains a big WP:1E.--Otterathome (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still rehashing the same arguments, still ignoring everything else I said (including precedents), still refusing to reveal why exactly it is so important to you, and apparently only you, that this page is gone.
You're the only one actively pursuing a deletion, and the only two supporters you got provide no valid argumentation - Joe Chill did a textbook example of WP:VAGUEWAVE, and while Atama is a little more elaborate, s/he provides no argumentation why the cited resources supposedly fail WP:RS, and is guilty of WP:GOOGLEHITS.
The only one actively pursuing this deletion is you, and you're rehashing the same arguments over and over again with no willingness to discuss the actual points made or even discuss a compromise like merging.
Seeing that, in combination with statements like "I guess after so many spin off series of the show, people have completely lost interest and nobody even bothers reporting it." or "Both the show and competition is a big WP:1E that never took off." it's easy to see that you don't really care whether the information on the page is Wikipedia-worthy or not. You want the page gone, no matter what.
The only thing I'm not sure about is whether you're one of those who lost out in TSIY1 and is trying to get some kind of revenge this way, or if you're just bored and trying to show force by getting a random article removed.
Either way, you're the only deletion supporter with anything close to a valid argumentation, and your constant cries of WP:N! WP:N! do not change the fact that the information on the page in question is integral to lonelygirl15, and will end up on Wikipedia one way or another - the only question is if it happens on its own page, or over there.
And for whatever Administrator who ultimately decides over this: "There are some subjects that are only known to a handful of people in the world. There may only be a limited number of people who are interested in reading the articles, and very few if any GHits. But this is not grounds for deletion." -> Wikipedia:MYTHS#Articles on obscure topics.
Even if you decide that there's nothing suspicious about Otterathome being the only one pushing this deletion, and even if you agree with the notability issues cited, WP:AQU still applies, and the article should be given a chance. Especially given that Otterathome is the only active supporter of this deletion, and his entire argument sums up as "Not notable! Not notable!", WP:NOPE should imo be given a thought as well.
Deleting an article just because a single user is pushing his personal opinion of a series would be unfortunate, and even if the independent page should be deleted, merging is still a valid and much saner option. Total annihilation of information due to a single user's vendetta should not happen.
~ Renegade - 80.171.53.21 (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're suppose to be proving how the article is notable, not discussing the user nominating it.--Otterathome (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "s/he provides no argumentation why the cited resources supposedly fail WP:RS, and is guilty of WP:GOOGLEHITS." As to the first one, the sources are blogs or the show's own web site. It should be pretty obvious why they aren't reliable, I didn't feel the need to elaborate. As to the second, that's bogus. I was showing that I had made an attempt at finding sources, I wasn't basing my entire argument on a Google search, which is what WP:GOOGLEHITS is about. And you're quoting WP:MYTHS, an essay, as some kind of counter to the WP:N guideline? -- Atamachat 02:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am, because it shows that not everyone has the same extreme deletionist views as Otterathome. Besides, while it may not have the same strength as a guideline, it would hardly be saved and shortcut if it wasn't considered worth a thought.
Of course, since you're already contrasting "essays" with "guidelines", you might as well just go forth and compare the meaning of "guideline" to "rule"...maybe after reading the very first box on WP:N, which clearly states "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." - emphasis mine.
Don't pretend that WP:N is an unbendable command of the universe that knows no flexibility and whose applicability is solely decided by you and Otterathome. As I pointed out multiple times before, the vast majority of users on this page voted keep, and so far, neither of you has addressed the numerous points for inclusion I made.
As for Google...your argumentation was thus: "The sources listed are not reliable. It is clear there are no reliable sources, because I found none on Google.". I would say you pretty much based your entire argument on Google search. You may not have done so intentionally, but it boiled down to "I found nothing on Google, so it's not notable.".
@Otterathome: Thank you. Every single time you refuse to address the factual points I make only underlines how little interest you have in actually achieving a consensus. As for your cheap attempt to put the burden of proof on me - the page existed for three entire months before you started your little crusade, there was a consensus about the page at the time of your nomination, and not only that, but your nomination is based on a vastly outdated revision. So if anyone has to prove anything, it's you, to show that your nomination even still applies to the current page.
As for both of you, since you are such big fans of WP:N - go read the introduction. It clearly says "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles."
Even if a WP:N test failed, nothing would speak against inclusion of the same information on the general LG15 page - in fact, it would be required to appear there, as, as I pointed out countless times before, The Last is the canonical continuation of a series already deemed notable by Wikipedia; simply dropping the information would unnecessarily mutilate Wikipedia's coverage of the topic.
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Nothing speaks against giving a complete overview of a notable franchise. Failing WP:N does not mean the information itself has to leave Wikipedia. As such, the question here should be whether to keep or to merge - deleting the information serves no purpose and renders Wikipedia's coverage of LG15 useless, as it would be incomplete and missing the large majority of the franchise information of this year.
And Otterathome's constant refusal to even acknowledge the option of a merge into lonelygirl15, despite the clear relevance of the information to a notable topic, betrays his intention to remove The Last from Wikipedia at all costs.
~ Renegade - 80.171.53.21 (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you appear to be discussing my motives for listing this for deletion, which isn't the purpose of AFDs. The way you speak about the subject makes it sounds like you are somehow connected to the subject. It is your WP:BURDEN to prove it is notable, not mine. And the AFD still applies to the current revision as any third-party sources in the article have already been listed here. And I didn't say it shouldn't be mentioned in the lonelygirl15 article. All I can see is that you are unable to find anymore sources to make it pass WP:N, so have resorted silly/weak arguments. I suggests you read the top of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.--Otterathome (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second everything that Otterathome has said, and I'll also state that I'm not opposed to a merge. I don't see why this show can't be mentioned at the lonelygirl15 article, it's clearly related. If that's a satisfying compromise then that's probably what should happen. -- Atamachat 17:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also would like to respond to your statement, "You may not have done so intentionally, but it boiled down to 'I found nothing on Google, so it's not notable'." Your analysis of what you think I'm saying is not only incorrect, but offensive. Do not put words in my mouth. You clearly are unfamiliar with WP:PROVEIT or are simply ignoring it. All that I needed to do to make a reasonable argument for deletion was to state that there are no reliable sources in the article. However, I am not a deletionist, and before I declare something notable or not I will make a sincere attempt to find sources, and if I find them I will argue for an article to be kept no matter how poor of a state the article is in. Demonizing editors for making good-faith attempts to find sources, along with your other personal attacks, only sabotages your attempts in this AfD. -- Atamachat 17:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't even that old, it was created on April 24th and the series hasn't even finished yet. It does seem a bit premature to be deleting an article on a show before it is even done! Can't the firing squad be postponed until the series has at least finished? KindredPhantom (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no time limit on deletion. Many articles are deleted right after creation if the subject isn't suitable for an article. If you feel that the show might gain more coverage after it's done, great, the article can be recreated at that time. -- Atamachat 19:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article says it ended on July 28th 2009 which is sourced from the official website.--Otterathome (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


@Otterathome: Yes, I am indeed questioning your motivation, and that is fully and entirely within both the writing and the spirit of the AFD:

Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed here are debated for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. The page is then either kept, merged or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy.

WP:AFD clearly states that the goal is not "delete, unless someone can prove there's no reason to", but a discussion about the merit of the content with a multitude of potential outcomes, including, but not limited to, improvement or merging.
Therefore, it is very relevant to this discussion whether you are acting out of the desire to improve Wikipedia and are open to all options that will lead to that result, or because you have a personal vendetta against The Last and the sole goal to remove it from the Wiki.
Your original deletion already included language implying a personal distaste for the subject matter, and after I have suggested merging six times now, and even Atama has spoken in favor of it, you are still refusing to even acknowledge the existence of that option. Even after the large majority of participants has voiced support for the page, you have still not shown a single sign of willingness to achieve consensus, or even anything close to a compromise. From everything visible on this page, your only reason for nomination is to get rid of The Last.
That is not what the deletion process is for, and your refusal to discuss or even acknowledge alternatives is hindering both the process of this discussion and the ultimate improvement of Wikipedia.
Pointing out that you're refusing to participate in a factual discussion and show no interest in consensus or compromise is not a personal attack, it's an observation that is of high relevance to this process, considering you're the original nominator.
Trying to paint that as "personal attacks" is weak at best.
@Atama: I apologize if I offended you, but that's how I understood your statement. I was not trying to demonize you, it just sounded like all you had done was a Google search and then deemed it not notable. No offense intended.
I'm not sure why you're pointing at WP:PROVEIT, as it is a content policy for text-additions, not a guideline for the deletion process, and thus not relevant to the question at hand. Ironically, it would support my statement either way, as it states The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material., and the relevant material added would be the deletion template, thus putting the burden of proof on Otterathome.
Nevertheless, since you seem to be more interested in consensus than Otterathome, how about we stop trying to club each other with policy links and try to find a compromise instead? :)
Currently, lonelygirl15 is one giant page with everything about the series and forms sort of a central page, linking to multiple smaller pages about the continuations and spin-offs. According to the Creators, the term "LG15" is to be used as a general term for the entirety of the franchise-universe; alas, a page of that name got deleted as a dead end redirect.
Would it be acceptable to you if we created a central portal-style page LG15, which keeps general information on the franchise and its smaller series, until they cross the necessary threshold of notability to gain their own page?
We would then have:
  • LG15: Housing information on The Last, n1ckola, as well as a general overview of the background and mythology of the franchise, its impact, viewcount variances, media response and treatment, etc
  • lonelygirl15: Purely housing information about that particular series
  • LG15: The Resistance: Purely housing information about that particular series (has been mention in the LA Times blog, CNET and other places...definitely notable enough for its own page.)
  • KateModern: Purely housing information about that particular series (While the references on the page are lacking, a quick Google search ;) will show you a number of mentions on places like The Guardian's site, The Sun's, NewTeeVee, Tubefilter, etc. The page just needs someone to add them.)
  • EQAL: Giving an overview of the company behind everything, its history, key personnel, business endeavors, market position, etc. This page should probably be created anyway, given that they're working with people like Anthony E. Zuiker, Paula Deen and CBS, and have a leading position in the web series market. And yes, they do have enough media mentions to be notable.
Would you support such a merging/reorganization effort, rather than just plain deletion? :)
~ Renegade - 213.39.158.142 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would support such a reorganization effort. It's a common compromise to make when you have a series of related articles that lack evidence of notability, but are themselves related to an article that does have notability. I don't see a problem with something like that. -- Atamachat 05:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - is there a way to report Otterathome to request an investigation in his behavior? If you check the page history, you will see that now that it is obvious we are coming to a compromise, he stopped participating in the actual discussion, and he has instead changed his behavior to trying to discredit supportive posts by inventing a conflicts of interest for Milowent and trying to put the validity of Byronwrites' opinion into question, by flagging him for having "few or no other edits outside this topic". (Given that the same is true for me, and I'm not even registered, it's quite clear he's just attempting to artificially reduce the support a merging effort has.)

He is also trying to downplay the significant support the page has in general, by implying in the header the page linked is a plain cry to vote for the page no matter what, while the users actually call for help improving the page:

"maybe we need to add more 2 it?"
"Yeah, anyone wanna help expand the LG15: The Last Wikipedia article?"
"The list of characters is [sort of] done."
"Yes! Thank you to whoever edited that page, *cheers* *gives you millions of e-cookies* "

And then on the next page,

"re wikipedia: I added some references to the Lg15: the last article, let me know if there are other articles i am missing. That usually helps with any notability debate."
"if you wish to keep the article, the best way to do so is to vote keep : --- *'''Keep''' - with your explanation."

Otterathome is cherry-picking a single post in a thread full of replies trying to improve the page and clearly stating one should explain why to keep, rather than just vote. In addition, the attempt to frame informing people of the deletion is somehow a dishonest attempt to skew the discussion, when, in fact, WP:AFD has an entire section "Notifying interested people" is just plain ridiculous.

I believe at this point, not even those of you who support the removal/merging of the page on notability grounds can deny that it is obvious Otterathome has some kind of underlying agenda, rather than the urge to improve Wikipedia. His refusal to discuss merging was telling enough, the fact that he now stopped discussing and resorts to these FUD tactics only underlines it.

So...is there some place I can go to have his behavior investigated?

~ Renegade - 80.171.84.166 (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2009 (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. Lack of references is a solvable problem, copyright/spam issues are actively worked on, and claims for and against notability are speculative. Per WP:CSB and the ongoing improvements, this article is kept.  Skomorokh  16:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austriamicrosystems

edit
Austriamicrosystems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article has no reference citations and appears to be a synthesis of cut and paste from http://www.austriamicrosystems.com/ Jezhotwells (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-consumer business manufacturing components -- The company focuses on the areas of power management, sensors and sensor interfaces, portable audio and car access -- unlikely to be the topic of significant coverage outside the trade. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was originally created by me. Since then, clearly someone within the company had turned it into something of a brochure which is not at all the kind of entry we want. However over the last few weeks, it has been steadily improved by a number of people and is now much more factual. It could use a little further improvement I grant you, but it's on the way. I don't agree that a business which does not sell to consumers directly is automatically a subject for deletion. There are many very large manufacturers which have little or no consumer product portfolio, but it does not make them unimportant. I hope and trust that we can remove the deletion tag soon. Colin99 (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep needs work, but possibly notable. A public company , so there ought to be some financial data and information on market share. Wherther a company derals with consumers or not is totally irrelevant to notability, though it does affect the nature of the sources likely to be available. Considering non-consumer businesses as less notable is systematic bias--if anything, their under-representation here is a reason to be flexible on sources. DGG (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2009 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Junken Building (Pittsboro Pizzeria)

edit
Junken Building (Pittsboro Pizzeria) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Several non-notable small-town buildings and businesses. No references or other evidence of notability. LP talk 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hayworth Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sawyer Building (Mason Inn) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I suspect that Sedna and 65.26.176.123 are the same person. If this AfD closes any way other than "delete," I'll see that a checkuser sorts the matter out. Vote fraud through sockpuppetry is grounds for blocking. Deor (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that you have drawn attention to it I have had a look of the editing history of these "two" users, and I think there is abundant evidence of sockpuppetry elsewhere as well as here. I think there is a good case for an investigation. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had my eye on Sedna's editing habits for some time, and I have no doubt that the IP is him/her. Most of the user's edits have been problematic. This is a person who means well, but doesn't know how Wikipedia works and apparently doesn't care. --LP talk 21:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should like to put on record the fact that 65.26.176.123 deleted "delete" comments by two other editors in this discussion, as can be seen in this edit. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even if a building isn't on the National Register, I'm willing to make exceptions for buildings that have unique architecture or that have a unique association with the history of a town. However, these three buildings don't meet that threshold. There's no indication of architectural merit in these buildings, and the only one that even comes close to historic importance is the Junken Building (mainly because it's the oldest building in town). The current uses of these buildings aren't notable. So, I'm going to say delete and say that the coverage in History of Pittsboro, Indiana is adequate. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These articles should be kept because these buildings are part of the Pittsboro Indiana history. The coverage in Pittsboro History isn't enough. In these articles It tells about the history of the buildings. Sedna10387 (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2009 (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. Trevor MacInnis contribs 17:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Becki Kregoski

edit
Becki Kregoski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only minor roles/stand-in's in a number of shows. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ENT. Otterathome (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - OMG do you pple not know who she is? Seriously?--Modelmotion (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We are saying she is not notable because she has had only minor roles and there are no independent reliable sources on which to base an article. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vanderanese language

edit
Vanderanese language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Failed prod, but the article most certainly needs to go. It has no references and no evidence to assert notability. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus - the input in this discussion is split. The article's supporters are invited to strengthen its text, while those who favor deletion are welcome to revisit this subject later in the year if the article has seen no substantial improvements. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Davis

edit
AfDs for this article:
Jackson Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only known for appearing in lonelygirl15 web show, other wiseminor appearances in a number of shows. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ENT. So delete and redirect to lonelygirl15. Otterathome (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was already nominated for deletion once before and kept. If we're doing another nomination, I ask on what basis are we departing from the prior consensus? Jackson Davis was one of the primary cast members on Longlygirl15, and then the lead character of the Lg15: The Resistance spinoff. I agree that most webseries "stars" do not merit their own article because most series are obscure, but the primary cast members of lonelygirl15 are just as noteworthy as the actors on cable TV shows, e.g., even the minor actors on The Closer (shown on TNT in the U.S.) have their own wikipedia pages. On WP:ENT alone, he has a large female following online, just look at the comments to any of the 100s of videos he appears in online, especially when shirtless. On basic notability criteria, he has been covered by secondary source material such as the newspapers cited in the article. --Milowent (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have you got any reliable sources, preferably third party ones to back up your claims? The local newspaper is only talking about him being in the lonelygirl series he has appeared in, and the new york times is a trivial mention in an article about the show too. Actors have to have multiple major roles in notable things, not just one. So it's a becoming a WP:1E too.--Otterathome (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability of a person is presumed "if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." That is the case in the Lancaster article, for sure. (I see the article is no longer available for full online, but I do recall reading it at some point, as I follow a number of webseries.) I do not think actors "have" to have multiple major roles in notable things to be notable (look at the cast of The Closer again), though I agree it is a consideration for notability. For example, "if the event is highly significant (which lonelygirl15 was), and the individual's role within it is a large one (which jackson davis' was), a separate article is generally appropriate." And again, is there some change of circumstance for departing from the prior consensus on this article? --Milowent (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can read the Lancaster article here. And the actors in the The Closer all appear to have had starring roles in other things. The only non-trivial source you have is a local paper from the subjects home town, and is only about the lonelygirl15 appearance, so its WP:1E. And if the event was 'highly significant' then there would be plenty of sources on him, for example Chesley Sullenberger and other examples given at WP:1E.--Otterathome (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you keep ignoring my point about the prior AFD outcome? Your conclusion about the actors in the Closer is subjective as to whether they are more notable than Jackson Davis. Surely that shouldn't be the dividing line for inclusion. --Milowent (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTAGAIN, also give me an example of somebody in The Closer show who you think is less notable.--Otterathome (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will happy to provide that information once you answer my point about the prior AFD outcome. On what basis are you saying the consensus has changed? As NOTAGAIN states: "An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion." What are these "strong reasons"? --Milowent (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why has the consensus changed, then? Your points are simply retreads of the prior AFD. Lg15: The Resistance, by the way, is notable separate from lonelygirl15. I know they are related, but both are separately notable. The latter was subject to much press on its own, invariably mentioning Jackson Davis as the star of the show. --Milowent (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say the consensus has changed, I nominated again for the same reason as before which was 'Non-notable Youtube personality, with only claim to fame is a small tie-in with the Lonelygirl15 series. ' which is still true.--Otterathome (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • LG15:The Resistance was a separate show, as I just noted. And his fame is not based on a "small tie in" to Lonelygirl15, he was one of three major actors on the show. That misapprehension triggered the prior AfD as well. --Milowent (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no new reason for this to be nominated for deletion again, after the concussion of the first was to keep. Jackson Davis played a big part in the Lonelygirl15 series which for a while was thought to be real and this alone is notable enough to keep. KindredPhantom (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep". The people placing these deletion notices are totally out of control and need to be stopped. They are totally spoiling the enjoyment of those who like to contribute to Wikipedia and hence its very survival as a valuable resource. Anyone who challenges why this page exist clearly does not have a clue as to the World they live in and why it is important. This is just insulting and the person who did it should take a step back from the cliff before they do any more serious damage to Wikipedia and the culture of openness that has led to its development.--Modelmotion (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep". Lonelygirl15 was a pioneer in the area of the modern web series. Any serious discussion of the history of web series must include LG15. It is historically significant. Jackson Davis appeared in more episodes of LG15 then any other actor. If for no other reason then completion sake this article should not be deleted. Anyone researching web series would be interested in learning more about him. Mathieas (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those above two keep votes look like WP:SPA accounts related to the subject.--Otterathome (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, yeah you might want to check my joined date Otterboy, I've been a member of wikipedia for years. I don't edit much because of people like you, but I've been around since the Bomis days when wiki didn't exist. Mathieas (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are not. They are guilty, however, of being familiar with lonelygirl15 and which actors are notable and which aren't. There are also some AfDs you did of non-notable characters that no one is voting to keep. --Milowent (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you were all referred here from a lg15 website, I guess you can ignore my spa suggestion then.--Otterathome (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So far the main arguments I see against deleting it are that 1: It was already kept, and 2: That this person is part of a famous show, and therefore should be kept. If he's that huge of a part of the show, I think there should be more news articles if that is the case. It could be that, given time, that will happen, but right now it doesn't look like it. I'm still looking around for articles, but since most of them are focused on the show, and not on the person, it seems to me that the correct thing to do is to redirect it to the show, and merge any of the important information into that article. And before anyone brings it up, the renomination doesn't bother me because it's been over a year, and the arguments for keep were terrible to begin with. In the intervening 17 months, if there has not been more coverage then a few article about the show, then I think he's not notable, and should only be considered in connection with the main topic. Sodam Yat (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If he's that huge of a part of the show, I think there should be more news articles if that is the case." How many is the proper number? The way things stand now on wikipedia, the three primary actors from lonelygirl15 all have individual pages. Minor actors pages are either up for deletion right now, or have been previously, deleted, and I think done so correctly. Of the three actors (Jessica Rose, Yousef Abu Taleb, and Jackson Davis), I would agree that Jackson is the least notable of the three, but still crosses the line, also due to starring in two separate EQAL webseries (which the other two have not). From the perspective of someone who is very knowledgable about web series (and not just lonelygirl15) I think this article crosses the line to keep. I don't know how much weight y'all will give to that, as wikipedia once deleted lonelygirl15 itself. --Milowent (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guideline states, "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." Generally I interpret that as meaning that if there are at least two sources that cover the subject significantly, and if the sources are both independent of the subject and reliable, then the basic threshold for notability is established. WP:RS covers what is and isn't a reliable source in more detail. In the references in this article, except for the Lancaster Sunday News article, Jackson's name is barely mentioned at all. That does not constitute "significant coverage". If you find at least one more source, a reliable one that isn't a blog like NewTeeVee for example, that might do it. -- Atamachat 05:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is entirely appropriate to renominate this article for deletion, the closing administrator in the previous AfD felt it necessary to comment that the arguments to keep the article were "thin on policy". That's another way of saying that those who wanted it kept couldn't give a good reason for it. Once again, nobody has given a reason why this person is notable. If you think that he is "historically significant", prove it by finding reliable sources to back up your claim A bunch of people saying "don't delete this because I like it" aren't going to succeed because this isn't a vote. I believe the only reason the last AfD survived was because while those arguing to keep weren't giving a legimitate reason to delete, nobody was giving a legitimate reason to delete either. -- Atamachat 00:01, 8 August 2009 (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 userfy to User:MPeterHenry/Language of logic. There is consensus here that the article with its current scope and structure is not appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopaedia, but also some agreement that it has value and promise.  Skomorokh  16:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language of logic

edit
Language of logic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined PROD. Very thin essay that deals with material already very well covered at Logic, Formal semantics, and especially First-order logic. The title also promises much more than it gives, in that the entry only makes a small point about first order logic, and not about logic and language in general. Redundant and unnecessary entry. Hairhorn (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While in my opinion the article does make a claim that is not explicitly found in the articles existing on logic, it is still a delete (instead of merge) because the title is too general to leave a redirect to, for instance, Gottlob Frege, or more specifically, the Begriffsschrift. Still the lead sentence should be rescued if it is not incorporated anywhere yet. I have alerted the WikiProject Logic on this. --Pgallert (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks to Pgallert for notifying the Logic project. I am not an expert for the aspect of logic covered in this article, but after a quick glance at it I got the impression that the creator is an expert. His contribution history supports this, and it also shows that he is a Wikipedia newbie. I am not convinced that this article needs to exist, or exist in this form or under this name. I am also not convinced it needs to be deleted or renamed. But I have some vague notion that this AfD may be a bit premature. Please, everybody, try not to bite a promising new contributor. New editors are told all sorts of things, but they are not told that every new article comes under extreme scrutiny and may well be proposed for deletion if it doesn't make a case for its existence in the first week (in fact the first few minutes). Hans Adler 11:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment: No content here worth keeping. I could see a point to a survey article, maybe historically oriented, on various syntaxes proposed for various systems of logic. There's no sense in which such an article would be documenting the language of logic, and the title seems to have been driven by the desire to talk about the language that a particular logic might be expressed in in parallel terms to natural language, cf. this edit. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll hold off, per Hans' request: certainly the van Heijenoort cite seems credible. I don't see where this article is going to add anything we haven't already got. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may well be that the creator decides to merge the article somewhere, once he understands Wikipedia a bit better and realises that like Britannica we actually prefer bigger, more comprehensive articles. I just hope we can avoid greeting him with too much drama. It seems quite possible that he started a new page mostly to avoid stepping on someone's toes. Hans Adler 12:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Because this is an essay, I'd normally recommend deletion. We already have an article for the History of logic, which the creator of this article might want to edit. The rest of this is covered in our other articles on logic. On the other hand, the topic of this article is rather common on google scholar and I imagine this could turn into quite a nice article after a bit of cleaning up and a change in the topic of the main body. I encourage the creator not to stop editing if this article gets deleted, but rather focus his energy into improving the articles we already have on logic, some of which are in need of help from an expert. ThemFromSpace 04:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfication - seems the logical place for it. Dont stop Editing :) Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect (too ambiguous). Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2009 (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) 21:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Pawlak

edit
Katherine Pawlak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO + WP:NOTABILITY, appears to fail WP:ENT. Only known for being in lonelygirl15 so delete and redirect there. Seemingly stars in Perkins' 14, but information is so sketchy whether this film is very notable and the article on it is a mess. Otterathome (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - amazing actress and a great singer. Why would you want to delete great content for Wikipedia when it has already been created. This just makes no sense and it just deters others from contributing.--Modelmotion (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2009 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cobus Potgieter

edit
Cobus Potgieter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO + WP:NOTABILITY. Looks like it was written by the subject. Otterathome (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Cobus Potgieter, it fails all applicable guidelines. Consider adding third party reliable sources of non-trivial coverage if want an article on yourself kept.--Otterathome (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I appreciate the fact that you think I (Smgafrica)am Cobus Potgiter. I am not though, but I did contribute to this article. i think this article is pretty accurate info. Could you please explain what you mean by third party content. There are links to other articles, and videos that verify details spoken about within this article. Please could you give some specific advice to help this article fit the 'requirements' for Wikipedia. You seem like you are an expert editor so some expert advice would be good.--Smgafrica (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2009 (CAT)
  • He said third party sources covering non-trivial info. That means stuff that meets WP:NOTABILITY. Also, some actual reliable sources to verify the information in the article would greatly help. I count 4 citations currently. Of course, considering that most of the stuff in the article right now doesn't seem to be notable, the better advice would be something like "Find notable information, include it, and cite it with a reliable source." Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2009 (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.

Aw come on! Smgafrica is a sponsor of Cobus! see? http://www.cobuspotgieter.com/faq/show/34/ just let the guy have his page geez! SMG Africa Sponsors this drummer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.14.118 (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

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. Yep look at the link given at the end of the discussion - thus passing WP:ATHLETE because of that JForget 00:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Doe

edit
AfDs for this article:
Scott Doe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Relist per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 30. Originally nominated for deletion by User:Vintagekits, who stated : Original reason for PROD removed. The footballer has never played in a fully-professional match. Fails WP:ATHLETE and the sources provided from the Dorset Echo are purely trivial. I barely consider the 3rd level of English football notable - this guy played in the 6th! Hiding T 21:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Hiding T 21:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, for the record the Times article barely even mentions Doe once! The Times actually discusses Theo Walcott how apparently played in with Doe when they where kids (even though the source doesnt mention it) yet Jimbo seems to think that it warrants a full paragraph in the article - its just padding and an attempt to get a half decent source into the article.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • well the admin involved in making it a GA a. doesnt seem to have considered the notability factor and b. doesnt think that the two are link.
  • Keep - Easily passes WP:BIO as he has had significant coverage by reliable sources. While this person might not pass WP:BIO's "Additional criteria" of WP:ATHLETE, the heading of "Additional criteria" states: "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." (Boldface not mine but is in original WP:BIO text.) I'm still waiting for the former teacher Barack Obama AfD with the stipulation "Fails WP:TEACHER." It's going to happen. You know it. --Oakshade (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, maybe because Barack Obama is notability outside of being a teacher - are you trying to argue that Scott Doe has some sort of notability outside of being a local footballer. The sources provided within the article being debated here are available from probably every single local footballer down as fair as the 10th level of football, infact my own name appears enough in my local paper to provide enough info for an article - however, this is just routine sports reporting which does not pass W:N. Now that we have had most of the "FOOTY Project cabal" !vote on this we can actually get some outside objective critique on the article.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not paper. If thousands of footballers have received significant coverage from reliable sources, then they pass WP:NOTABILITY. If you've received as much coverage as this person has, then I'd argue that your article should be kept if it was up for AfD. There's no "If the person is an athlete, then they must pass WP:ATHLETE" clause anywhere in WP:BIO or WP:NOTABILITY. As a matter of fact it states the opposite. I'm not part of a "FOOTY" cabal, thank you. --Oakshade (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I am also not from said cabal, so I suggest you take your bad faith accusations elsewhere! Jeni (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said either of you were part of the "cabal" - however, the logic behind your keep !vote shows exactly what you are. sweet dreams.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vintagekits, you cannot say that just because someone !votes against you in a discussion, that they are then part of a cabal; especially as said cabal doesn't actually exist! GiantSnowman 08:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I feckin wrote - I never said that they were in the cabal.
If you dont think that there is a biased cabal at work here then I would draw you attention the AfD of Vid Belec - a player who played for Slovakia in an underage international tournament and from Inter Milan in an international pre season tournament - there were multiple references from much better sources then passing mentions in the Dorset Express (quick Google search will show that) - however, the same editors that are !voting to delete purely on the basis of WP:ATH are the same ones that are voting here to ignore WP:ATH - I'll let you make your mind up why. I can provide a a mountain of other such hypocritical examples where they are "gaming the system".
GiantSnowman, would you like a few examples of your hypocricy to be delivered here?--Vintagekits (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "the logic behind your keep !vote shows exactly what you are" would indicate that you believe them to be part of this "biased cabal". If you are unhappy with the result of a deletion discussion, then take it to WP:DRV; this is not the place to do it. GiantSnowman 08:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well your assumption of "my indication" is wrong, as case of reading what you want to read as opposed to what is actually there.
Also I've taken the AfD of two footballers to DRV recently and they were both overturned - despite the yelps and cries of those very people I describe as "the cabal" who are using wikipedia to further their own POV. I include you in that and like I said can provide evidence of your hyprocricy at the drop of a hat. Out and out bullies is what they are and they have been shown up as such.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your (absolutely nnegative) opinion of me, I resent being accused of being a member of a cabal, and I certainly resent being accused of being a bully, so please cease. GiantSnowman 08:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will cease when I the "piss take" that is the "FOOTY Project cabal" ceases to use wikipedia as their own "football". Like I said do you want example of your (and their) hypocricy to be shown here? Biased, gamers, bullies and liars.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you really haven't learnt from your block have you? GiantSnowman 09:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which one?--Vintagekits (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one which saw you blocked for 72 hours, and had two requests for unblocking declined due to uncivil behaviour. GiantSnowman 09:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the one where a biased member of the FOOTY Project cabal abused his admin powers and then the block was overturned at ANI and the cabal member then came and apologised on my talk page? That one? Sorry, I thought it was one of the 26 others!--Vintagekits (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The athletics criterion is a sensible one, and serves nicely for eliminating very local heros. I think it was intended to overrule to GNG--except when the GNG applies to some other aspect of notability for the same person. There is no reason why we can not do it--at Wikipedia we make the rules. There can be many relationships between the general and special guidelines. In this case, to judge an athlete by his accomplishment by his athletes rather than if a town paper happens to be available is a very sensible way to proceed. We should do this more often. I've always been a deletionist on local figures until we can develop a multi layer structure, and call only the top one Wikipedia. Nothing the Dorset Echo and the Ilford Recorder say about a player can make him notable as a player. (Thus the Obama analogy fails--no number of articles about him as teacher (and there are a few, driven by the interest in him as a politician) will make him notable as a professor--his notability is otherwise.) DGG (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I already stated, WP:N alone (which is a guideline itself) is not enough to establish notability for simple athletes, especially minor league footballers. In cases like these, WP:ATHLETE must be also met. Also, please note that news coverage (which may be pretty extensive on football in Europe, even in minor leagues) does not automatically give notability to a subject. I am however also supportive of freezing this AfD until August 8, so that we can realize if the subject can actually meet WP:ATHLETE for that date and, in that case, I would be happy to change my !vote. --Angelo (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this person passes the WP:GNG, a fact that rather seriously undermines all these people who're saying that he isn't notable. See my remark at the earlier DRV, where I cited significant coverage in reliable sources.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As noted elsewhere, he's signed for a club the 4th level in England. I'd keep until it's established whether he's going to play at that level or not. Alternatively, delete, but keep the history so the article can be reestablished easily if he becomes notable at a later stage. I've made similar arguments for League of Ireland players in similar positions. Jhealy (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has never played at even a reasonable level of soccer in England. Trivial press mentions used as sources and as to the good article debate it is not a reason to keep if it fails deletion criteria and says more about the reviewer. BigDunc 13:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What deletion criteria is it supposed to fail? The only ground that I find intelligible in terms of policies or guidelines is the notability argument, and that simply doesn't hold water. The GNG is an objective test: non-trivial coverage in more than one reliable source. There are two articles on the BBC that discuss him. So unless it's contended that the BBC is not a reliable source, he passes the GNG.

    WP:ATHLETE does not supersede the GNG. WP:ATHLETE is the opinion of one Wikiproject, but WP:N is a global consensus of significant age and strength.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's perfectly true. Nevertheless, reliable sources are reliable sources and the GNG doesn't distinguish between national and local news coverage. I can cite a reference to a local newspaper or local TV channel and that presents no particular problem.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point being that the reporting of this player is routine run'o'da'mill sports reporting that is in my opinion pretty trivial. Maybe I am out of step and forgive me for being slightly old fashioned but I consider a player notable when he has actually dont something notable. No matter how much wikilaywering goes on, in my opinion playing in the fifth level of football isnt, nor is someone who has just played one minute as a subsitute in any league outside the Premier Division or someone that he just playing is in the lowly reguarded FL Trophy. However, there seems to be a concensus amongest "the Cabal" (yes I know its getting boring now) that it is OK to focus on one technicality for one player but at the same time ignoring techinicalities - e.g. John Doe (no relation to Scott) plays two minutes for Jockstrap United against Rochdale so technically passes WP:ATH, but one of the Jockstrap players is a part time plasterer so therefore technically the team and therefore the league is technically not "fully professional" and therefore the player fails WP:ATH. Herein lies the bias and screwed sense of notability the sits in the mindset of "the Cabal" - and until such time comes as there is a fair and level playing field then it isnt going to be a smooth ride.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your rationale for your !vote - I disagree that it is non-trivial coverage for the reasons outlined, but I undertstand it. My argument is that the as well as the coverage being trivial they guy just isnt notable - yet anyway! I understand your point about his mentions about him in the BBC - but if the BBC (and other reliable sources) report that a man falls off his bike and into a manwhole - is he also notable because he will pass GNG?--Vintagekits (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's on the roster for a club which we have a page for. "He signed for Dagenham on a permanent basis on a two-and-a-half-year contract in March." Using an existing page as an argument for another is relevant when notability is an issue and one is a participant in the subject of the existing article. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, possibly the weakest arguement I ever heard on any AfD let alone this one. So because there is an article about Ware F.C. does that mean that everyone in the squad. Actually if this is kept they probably are because there are the same sources available. Let Pandora's Box open!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Vintagekits, the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. It's particularly so on Wikipedia, where the argument from setting a precedent fails because Wikipedia specifically disavows precedent as a reason for making a decision (hence WP:OCE). Try a more constructive and less sarcastic line of argument.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue against that point if I understood a word you said! You have ta dumb doun wen yer taulkin ta me son!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is Dagenham at the "fully professional" level or not? I don't see a "fully professional" label in the infobox, so I don't know whether that club qualifies. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dagenham & Redbridge play in Football League Two, which is widely considered to be fully professional. There has been the odd player in recent seasons who has played in the league while holding down another job, but these examples (eg Dave Rainford) have been reported by the media due to their exceptional status. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So therefore not fully professional! There are plenty of examples of part time players as outlined in other AfD's - and even this season there will be part timers - and thats assuming that this player gets a get! --Vintagekits (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but likely to be a moot point after the new season starts. I class the BBC coverage on the same basis as that from the Dorset Echo - essentially local that does not show notability in a wider sense. Just because a source has 'BBC' to it does not mean that it is national coverage. Yes, it can be accessed nationally, but the interest is only local. Much the same as the Dorset Echo can be accessed nationally but is unlikely to be of interest to those outside the area. I know that the GNG do not make mention of the 'localness' or otherwise of sources, but I believe that it is vital to take that into account, particularly when regarding BLPs. Quantpole (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:BIO by virtue of passing WP:N. Clearly meets the general notability guidelines (per article as it exists) and thus meets our notability guidelines. WP:BIO specifically says: "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." This is as clear cut as it gets folks. Hobit (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Scott Doe has made his debut for Dagenahm & Redbridge in League Two, against Crewe Alexandra, passing WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo[online] 14:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the issue of minor player notability is going to be wikilawyered to death over the wording of WP:ATHLETE, then his start today magically made him notable. Daft I know, but them's the rules. closing admin take note of the new situation. MickMacNee (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Auskerry

edit
Rory Auskerry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiography of a radio journalist/presenter. The article does not indicate notability: the only reference is his own web-page, and Google shows mostly Myspace, Linkedin, Twitter, blogs and the sort of listings that any presenter would get - none of the sort of independent comment that would indicate notability, certainly nothing like the standard of WP:ENTERTAINER. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2009 (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) 21:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bassorah

edit
Battle of Bassorah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This nomination by 96.251.79.127 (talk) was incomplete. The edit summary was empty; no reason for deletion was given. From the look of it, the article has been tagged with {{Original research}} and {{Refimprove}} for over a year, and I can see that the discussion page has some suspicious sections like "Probable Copyright Violation", "Please check references" and "Neutrality of this article in question". The nominator has made no other edits outside this topic and I'm not expressing any opinions myself. May qualify for WP:Speedy keep. — Rankiri (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2009 (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. JForget 01:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

El Shaddai (movement)

edit
El Shaddai (movement) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability asserted but not established by references. Almost completely unreferenced. Contains some mixture of excessively promotional material with blp-dubious "criticism", which is potentially defamatory accusations that the leaders of the group are scam artists. If an article about this topic were to be on Wikipedia, it would have to be restarted almost from scratch. ⟳ausa کui× 21:06, 3 August 2009 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Benn

edit
Stephen Benn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NO grounds for inclusion. Clearly a one sided and biased promotional article for the subject. one reference to the BBC website is no grounds for inclusion. Such drastic revision or deletion. Wiki is not an encyclopedia for every living person - see its criteria for whats notable! --WikiKing2012 (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the intemperate language of the nomination suggests that the nominator had an agenda, and I am not surprised to learn that s/he was a sock; but I still don't see independent notability, and my !vote stands. JohnCD (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Myself wondered about that possible agenda. Did some research. Found the name "Stephen Benn" to be a common enough name to be in lots of news articles[10]. Is it possible that a few of these are about this Stephen Benn? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked through them - nos. 1, 2, 5, 21, 22, 24, 26 are this Benn, but they are nearly all in connection with his father. I think the only possible independent one is #5, the Toronto Star, quoting him as a "long-time Labour insider", but it's pay-per-view, you don't actually see it, and anyway I don't think that's enough. JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2009 (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. JForget 00:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Benn

edit
Emily Benn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

STRONG DELETE Fails all wiki criteria for includes. No notability. Promotional page. Editing done by SPA --WikiKing2012 (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If every candidate standing for parliament was to have a wiki page - the site would be overloaded and its credibility destroyed. Just because she's standing does not mean she is notable for inclusion. --WikiKing2012 (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is exactly the situation we have with US congressional candidates. Furthermore, Benn is not *any* candidate - she secured the nomination of a major party (indeed, the current majority party). Wefa
(Oh, and while we are at it, WikiKing2012, would you please stop "voting" multiple times? It is annoying and confuses the casual reader.) Wefa (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE User:WikiKing2012 has been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet of User:BirminghamAV. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BirminghamAV/Archive for details. I am strinking the second !vote. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Mere candidacy for Parliament is not a claim to notability, nor is a famous grandfather. However, holding the record for youngest Labour Parliamentary candidate is. Even so, the article needs heavy pruning to lose its promotional tone. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a major party candidate for a national legislature should be regarded as notable if they win formal nomination or whatever the procedure may be. In the campaign, they'll have as much coverage as the winner, and that's almost always enough for the GNG. DGG (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above arguments. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 21:30, 5 August 2009 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Gould (Labour Party Member)

edit
Georgia Gould (Labour Party Member) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Strong Delete The controversy incident is not notable under wiki.

Apart from that the article is self-promotional and there are no notable achievement to warrant such a page.

Wiki an encyclopedia and georgia gould has not achieved any other significance. Thousands of students pass through Oxford colleges each year - this is no reason for inclusion. Neither is working for the Tony Blair Faith Foundation.

As the subject has failed to demonstate notable grounds for continued inclusion - the debate should be opened as to wtheter to keep the page.--WikiKing2012 (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are multiple third-party, independent reliable sources supporting her notability. Notability is (partly) measured through such sources. Since reliable newspapers have given her prominence, she's notable under Wikipedia guidelines. (BTW, I completed this nomination for you, which involved some administrative work as you failed to include the parenthesis.) The JPStalk to me 20:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - didn't know about that!--WikiKing2012 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE User:WikiKing2012 has been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet of User:BirminghamAV. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BirminghamAV/Archive for details. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:SNOW, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollball

edit
Rollball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable game, fails WP:MADEUP WuhWuzDat 20:44, 3 August 2009 (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) 11:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kimmi Cupcakes

edit
Kimmi Cupcakes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails on WP:ENTERTAINER. PROD refused by creator. No reliable source present. Hitro talk 20:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Hitro talk 17:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedy deleted by R'n'B under WP:CSD#G7. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ONE Lowell World Cup

edit
ONE Lowell World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable soccer competition. Appears anyone can enter to represent their country. Motivation behind the article appears to be to gain more exposure for a non-profit organisation. The article contains significant text copied directly from the competitions website and is horribly unclear about what it's all about. noq (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2009 (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. Anyone requesting a userfication should contact me on my talk page. Thanks! JForget 00:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Feudalism during the Civil War

edit
Organic Feudalism during the Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be about some little-known political movement during the civil war. Cites no sources. This article may be too complex for Wikipedia. Area968 (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2009 (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) 11:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of self-inculpators

edit
List of self-inculpators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List with four entries. Criteria for inclusion are impossibly broad:

"prominent individuals who have inadvertently inculpated themselves by producing, and failing to adequately conceal or to destroy, written or otherwise-recorded evidence that has subsequently implicated them in faults or crimes."

This is a very big category of people; almost anyone (prominent) who fails to cover their own tracks in a crime or misdeed can fall in here. The broader the criteria are, the less interesting the list is. Hairhorn (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, refine the criteria as appropriate, and add more examples. Nihil novi (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - criteria for inclusion is so impossibly broad that the list can never serve any use - we may as well have "list of people hit by cars" "list of people shot in the head" and all. What ties them together? Nothing in time, geography or relevancy except that they failed to destroy incriminating evidence. most criminals are caught for failing to destroy incriminating evidence. Ironholds (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the examples even indicate the complete lack of coherence. One probable case of treason disputed for centuries, 2 adulteries, and an historic & undisputed impeachment. Add to which everyone who has ever produced anything that might be considered evidence showing them possibly guilty of a legal or social offense. I suppose half the divorce cases throughout history come in this group. This is what is meant by indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia at its worst. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2009 (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) 11:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Sawyer, Avenger

edit
Tom Sawyer, Avenger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completing unfinished nom for IP because NOBODY EVER REALIZES WHEN AFD DISCUSSIONS ARE REDLINKED ANYMORE! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tens of thousands of people have said exactly what you've just said and tens of thousands of articles about subjects that did not assert notability under WP:N and provide any reliable, third-party sources to establish the notability were deleted anyway. We have, probably, hundreds of thousands of stubs that haven't been deleted simply because nobody has seen them yet. If you want this article kept, I recommend you find some reliable third-party sources and attempt to establish why this book is notable and forget about the unbacked claims about vendettas and bias. We've heard it a million times before. EDIT: I have added the one reference you provided and properly formatted it. I also cleaned up the article a lot, removing a lot of unnecessary bulk. If you can find other such references, book reviews, anything at all, please provide them and I will do my best to help you format and include them. If you can provide these references and establish notability, I will change my vote to keep. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That "one reference" doesn't seem to actually contain any content. I've gotten a blank archive notice each time I've tried to review it, and the name "New author continues Tom and Becky's adventures on the Internet" seems to indicate this isn't even an ink-and-paper book. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is an "ink and paper" book. It may not be the best quality ink, or paper, for that matter. You can take that up with the publisher. But the words themselves do exist outside of the internet on over 300 pages in bound form. The point of my expanding the article on Wikipedia was to offer more information on the story itself. To consider that it was much safer, under the radar, as a stub is ironic. --Frodo3019 (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koch Entertainment discography

edit
Koch Entertainment discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Overlong, under-researched discography, no sources, no hope of being complete. See Sony BMG discography for similar problems. Borderline hoax as many of the listed labels aren't even distributed by Koch. The list is also half assed as it only shows rap artists. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:38, 3 August 2009 (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. JForget 23:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminum Overcast

edit
Aluminum Overcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a aircraft of particular note (referring to Wikipedia:Notability_(aircraft)#Individual_aircraft) Aircraft use by owning organization may be notable but not airframe as such GraemeLeggett (talk)

On a causal check, I have found a number of reference sources online and at least one magazine article in a recent Air Classics issue. This meets the standard of "Aluminum Overcast" being notable. However, the main problem in the article is the scarcity of information in the article. Hold off one week and I will "spruce it up" in my own inimitable style. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
You have a fair history on the aircraft now but the lead sentence still doesn't tell me why it is notable (enough for a wikipedia article). GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on some suggestions, I have revised the lede to establish the aircraft's notability. Take a look at the new version. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep page, it is notable because it is one of the few surviving aircraft of its type and it is shown and seen by many. A number of references have been added today. Snowman (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP page, it is notable because of the hundreds of flying hours every year showing and giving a small glimpse of how these venerable aircraft are flown and how they are maintained, compared to how they were used in war. This is one of approximately 14 flying Fortresses... they are all notable and by rights should have their own page. Without these flying warbirds and the other flying warbirds, 25's, 24's, 29, T-6s, P-51s etc... these aircraft are teaching today's society of what past wars were like flying and surviving in the air and war is not fun. I have hours of flight time on 17's and a 25, and having a WWII B-17 veteran saying, "thank you for keeping this bird (Alum. Overcast) in the air...", you know you are a part of the great good! I volunteer hundreds of hours to these warbirds every year, and they are all "notable" and no different than Memphis Belle or Fifi or the Wright Flyer. LanceBarber (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' 14 airworthy aircraft out of 12,751 built makes this notable enough to have an article. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd just like to clarify: I am not saying that aircraft is not recorded, but not as an individual article rather than (as an example) as part of the List of B-17 survivors article. As a comparison there are about 17 Lancasters of 7,000 built, only two fly but there is a single individual article on the RAAF memorial G for George - the rest are covered adequately in the main article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That reminds me that "VR-A", the "Mynarski Lanc" (the Andrew Mynarski VC Memorial Lancaster) is certainly worthy of an article of its own. Hoping I'm not starting a new kettle of worms? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
      • Comment. Notability for individual "vehicles" on Wikipedia is somewhat haphazard. Almost every ship is deemed notable enough to have an article. Almost no individual road vehicles are deemed notable enough. I'd say that aircraft and railway locomotives are on a par, with some being deemed notable enough and others not notable enough. IMHO, both flying Lancs should have their own articles. Just a case of no-one writing the article on them yet. Maybe this needs further discussion elsewhere. BTW, Sally B has an article, and is just as noteworthy as Aluminum Overcast. Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "...Aluminum Overcast has become one of the most recognizable examples of the type..." – several online reference sources and a magazine article – and how many of these, or in fact any other WWII type aircraft still flying, allow the public the chance to experience a flight in them?! Seems notable enough to me. --Red Sunset 19:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would suggest that the article's facts and figures need looking at however:– "logging over one million flight hours by 2009". Really? That's more than 114 years! --Red Sunset 19:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are, somehow one million miles got transposed to one million flight hours, might as well said, a gazillion hours... LOL FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2009 (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's consensus here that the article as it stands is untenable, and those favouring retention have not shown that the subject of the article is a discrete encyclopaedic topic nor that it is in itself notable. Should the article be needed for userspace development or transwiki'ing, please feel free to request temporary restoration at WP:UND or at my talkpage.  Skomorokh  16:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take it one step at a time

edit
Take it one step at a time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia isn't an advice column for the likes of "Look before you leap" or "No use crying over spilt milk". This is probably not fodder for an encyclopedic article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- Umm... I'm pretty sure that there's no such policy you appear to have made that 'policy' up from whole cloth. In any case, the article is not an advice column in any way; this is a perfectly standard time management term; there are entire books written about this, and the article has plenty of scope to become a well-rounded article over time; and that is all that is needed to survive an AFD.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't made up any "policy". I'm observing that a piece of advice is not a thing you can write an encyclopedic article about. I understand that the concept of time management is sensibly mentioned in other articles. To take a similar example, doctors typically advise patients to give up smoking. A smoking article exists, and it discusses the negative findings about the effects of smoking on health. That's all well and good but it doesn't justify a Wikipedia article with the title "You should give up smoking". —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no rule against that either; and there are situations where that's completely legitimate. You're supposed to be arguing from policies, not making up your own.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There also is no policy that reads, "Thou Shalt Not Write An Article Entitled 'I Had A Dream About A Cat Last Night'" but that doesn't mean you ought to write an article called "I Had A Dream About A Cat Last Night". Articles are about topics. "Take it one step at a time" isn't a topic. A book may tell you, as part of your time management strategy, to take it one step at a time. It won't tell you anything about "take it one step at a time". It won't say "take-it-one-step-at-a-time was invented in 1846. The first public appearance of take-it-one-step-at-a-time was in Warsaw in 1857. Take-it-one-step-at-a-time is most often found in institutes of higher education. In 2003 there was a shortage of take-it-one-step-at-a-time in the southwestern United States but the supply has been replenished." —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you're just trying to be insulting and derogatory but an article about a dream you had last night would fail a whole host of policies; including WP:OR. If this kind of bad faith commentary is the best you can come up with, the rest of us here will be talking about wikipedian policies, which is what this review is supposed to be about.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is actually a category of phrases: Category:Phrases and it is quite well populated.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, the wikipedia already has 4 articles on this topic. If this article survives the AFD, then I can merge them to this one place, in accordance with WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find the phrase "One step at a time" in any of the three references in the article. Seems like a dictionary definition and original research, as well as a short essay. The articles about "sayings" which are linked also might belong at AFD. Wikipedia is not a collection of jokes or sayings. The Keep vote above by the article creator should be noted as such, not that there's anything wrong with wanting to keep the article you created. Edison (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no. Look, a dictionary definition defines one word or phrase multiple ways; it's based on a lexical topic; the word(s). An encyclopedic article defines synonymous words or phrases one way; it's centred on the concept. It's unusual but this is a perfectly well formed topic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    e.g. cat article can talk about house cats, felines, moggies etc. etc. There's nothing wrong with listing synonyms in encyclopedia articles.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    'first things first', which very definitely is in the references. Unless you're claiming that they're not synonymous, your claim of OR is without merit; apart from being ridiculous anyway. I mean are you saying I made up these common terms?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a large category in the wikipedia of Category:Phrases in fact. These are by no means excluded.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this is indeed covered as well as the creator indicates, as succinctly and as significantly, then much better references should have been included. Links to obscure pages within Google Books, without descriptive text for linking is shoddy at best. This looks like a hurried push, something not expected of an editor of his years. A Google search reveals a mere 146,000 hits, most of which have nothing to do with this very obscurely presented concept. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When I do a search for 'first things first' I get more than 2 million hits, and the first ones are essentially entire books on the same topic. Point of fact I couldn't call it 'first things first' because the wikipedia's software doesn't allow two names with different capitalisation, so I had to call it something different.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That should be a logical indicator to you that this article is doomed... - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No. First Things First is a disambiguation page with inappropriate case. There's entire books written on this topic. You're seriously claiming that because of broken software the wikipedia shouldn't have an article on a valid topic?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This would need a great deal of expansion to be an article for Wikipedia rather than for Wikitionary. Perhaps it too could be turned into a disambiguation page. DGG (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We're supposed to be voting on whether the article can grow into a reasonable article. Given there are books on this, there's prima facie evidence that this is possible. I think it can happen, otherwise I wouldn't have created the article. I was also deliberately looking for types of articles that were not being covered; unusual articles tend to surprise people, and at deletion reviews this frequently causes them to vote delete. Given that there is no policy against the article I do not think it should be deleted.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a phrase that is mentioned in the cited articles. Or, alternatively, Keep. After all, we can always improve or move it later. We just need to take it one step at a time.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The principle is that it shouldn't matter that much what you call it, when you have multiple possibilities. This article is an umbrella article to combine the other articles into. This is perfectly well allowed, even encouraged, by the policies. This call for deletion is completely without merit.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as unencyclopedic. It can always be created later if encyclopedic coverage becomes possible. Some phrases are topics in and of themselves (e.g., To be, or not to be). This one isn't, as far as I can tell from the sources provided. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article does not seem to violate any of the things that wikipedia is not. If it is unencyclopedic, you will need to explain how. I'm personally sure it is indeed encyclopedic in fact.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the sources (or could be) are about the phrase, they only include the phrase, because it is not an encyclopedic topic. You will need to explain how it is encyclopedic when there are no reliable sources about the phrase. I'm personally sure it is indeed unencyclopedic in fact. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Coverage is not encyclopedic presently. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split the various topics covered, and then delete this page. Note that the page does not discuss the phrase take it one step at a time. The section "Project Management" should be merged to Project management. A new page could be created for Kill a Turk and rest if there are reliable sources to establish notability. "Cow cow" should be transwikied to Wiktionary, unless well-sourced encyclopedic content can be added, in which case it could be a page. Cnilep (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, unlike the instructions in WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary you want to move synonymous terms apart in the encyclopedia? The wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles are on a topic not on a phrase. Clearly these phrases are all the same topic, and hence are properly to be placed in the same article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that the article does not have one topic, it has two or three, depending on how you count them. The lead section refers to "a common idea that it's important to do things in a particular order," and this is picked up again in the section "Project management". The other two sections, however, describe "a common Hebrew / Israeli slang expression" (Cow cow) and "a common Israeli saying" (Kill a Turk and rest). If this is to be on the topic of time management, these quasi-philological sections do not belong. Cnilep (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki if Wiktionary wants it. An odd combination of dictionary definitions of phrases and a how-to guide. Unfortunately, neither of those is appropriate for Wikipedia. Powers T 15:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are these definitions not different words for the same thing though? If they are the same, then they are one topic and should be found in one article. That's how the wikipedia works.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, assuming it's a notable, encyclopedic topic. There's nothing encyclopedic to say about any of these phrases. Besides, they're organized as if they all had different meanings: "'One step at a time' means such-and-such", "'cow cow' means blah blah blah", "'Kill a Turk and rest' means this and that...". Powers T 17:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're not arguing that they're different, you're saying that a stub article isn't particularly well laid out, and that calls for deletion? Uh huh. I must have missed that guideline. I think we knew that, otherwise it wouldn't be a stub article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reece Wooldridge

edit
Reece Wooldridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The Article does not present any argument for the subject's notability. Article was created by an IP, was never edited, and does not cite any sources. All in all it looks like a promotional article for a sales person Wefa (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2009 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fab Four of Indian cricket

edit
Fab Four of Indian cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pointless article, totally POV, All original research Abeer.ag (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOV, and anyway there is nothing here which cannot be included in one of the individual player articles. Note also the one reference on the page, which is actually an article about them, er, not being so fab after all. Nice irony that the two items in the "other quartets" section are more commonly grouped than these, though. EJBH (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2009 (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. Snow, as hoax DGG (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Saadat Khan

edit
Raja Saadat Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a hoax. No reference exists for a person under this name who has won the Victoria Cross. All recipients of the Victoria Cross are listed in the London Gazette and this person has no listing, he has no listing in a well-used reference work regarding VCs, Max Arthur's Symbols of courage. There is no listing in the National Archives, no web references to suggest this might be an alternative name. The user who created this has not responded to concerns though he has continued to edit. Note user created two articles: this and Yar Mohammad Khan. Also see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:MILHIST#Are there any Victoria Cross experts out there? Woody (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I believe that this article should be deleted because I can find no mention of this name in relation to being a Victoria Cross recipient. As per Yar Mohammad Khan I have spent hours looking for information (I do not take deleting articles of this nature lightly as if he is a true recipient the subject is worthy of a mention in Wikipedia), however, I could find no mention in the National Archives VC register, nor could I find anything related in a Google or Google books search. I have asked the creator to provide proper verifiable sources (not just the throw away general references already included, but page numbers and direct links, e.g. to the London Gazette), however, they have not responded and have not improved the article to allay my concerns. Given that many people have done a lot of hard work correlating information on VC recipients both in the National Archives and here on wikipedia (and elsewhere) I believe that if this subject were a true recipient (or an alternative name of one) it would be documented some where. As it is not, I feel that all we can do is delete the article. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom David Underdown (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2009 (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. Snow, as hoax DGG (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yar Mohammad Khan

edit
Yar Mohammad Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a hoax. No reference exists for a person under this name who has won the Victoria Cross. All recipients of the Victoria Cross are listed in the London Gazette and this person has no listing, he has no listing in a well-used reference work regarding VCs, Max Arthur's Symbols of courage. There is no listing in the National Archives, no web references to suggest this might be an alternative name. The user who created this has not responded to concerns though he has continued to edit. Note user created two articles: this and Raja Saadat Khan. Also see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:MILHIST#Are there any Victoria Cross experts out there? Woody (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2009 (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. Consensus seems to suggest that the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnybrook Park

edit
Sunnybrook Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article may talk about a big park, but it doesn't show importance about the topic. Jeremjay24 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Dog Named Angel

edit
A Dog Named Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research Oscarthecat (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A confused discussion with no clear outcome as to the reliability of the references or the etymology. Ultimately, being self-published is not reason enough to dismiss the Fekete source, and thus the notability of the topic.  Skomorokh  16:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biflation

edit
Biflation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

patent nonsense. Article claims that biflation is simultaneous inflation and deflation. Inflation and deflation are both concepts which apply to the whole economy. The economy cannot inflate and deflate at the same time. Article says that some parts of the economy inflate while others deflate. This is a misuse of the terms "inflation" and "deflation". Some random refs do not add to the understanding. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - The above statement inflation and deflation cannot occur simultaneously is not true at all. They can, indeed occur simultaneously. The commenter above is referring to “Economic” inflation and deflation not occurring simultaneously. I agree. However, the term ‘Biflation’ refers to “Price” inflation (not economic inflation) which can occur simultaneously. Refer to an 2007 article by Professor Antal E. Fekete, “Can We Have Inflation and Deflation at the Same Time?” Professor Fekete is a full Professor of Mathematics and Economics at the University of Newfoundland. He’s an expert on monetary economics and has served as a consultant to Paul Volker (Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank). In the article he states:

What does it all mean? At minimum it means that we can have inflation cum deflation. I am not referring to stagflation. I refer to the seemingly impossible phenomenon that the money supply inflates and deflates at the same time. The miracle would occur through the devolution of money. This is Alf Field’s admirable phrase to describe the „good money is driven out by bad” syndrome. Electronic dollars driving out FR notes. The more electronic money is created by Helcopter Ben, the more FR notes will be hoarded by banks and financial institutions while passing along electronic dollars as fast as they can. Most disturbing of all is the fact that FR notes will be hoarded by the people, too. If banks

cannot trust one another, why should people trust the banks? Devolution is the revenge of fiat money on its creator, the government. The money supply will split up tectonically into two parts. One part will continue to inflate at an accelerating pace, but the

other will deflate. Try as it might, the Federal Reserve will not be able to print paper money in the usual denominations fast enough, especially since the demand for FR notes is global. Regardless of statistical figures showing that the global money supply is increasing at an unprecedented rate, the hand-to-hand money supply may well be shrinking as hoarding demand for FR notes becomes voracious. The economy will be starved of hand-to-hand money. Depression follows deflation as night follows day.

The term "Biflation" has 1,260 hits on Google and is being discussed internationally. Why would you want to delete the term? - Karl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.107.217.23 (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If registered users with an interest in economics don't think its worth keeping then I don't want to argue with that. Ben MacDui 07:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The concept seems possible, i.e. that there is inflation in one class of goods, and deflation in another class of goods at the same time. However, except for this one article from the Dallas News, there are no reliable sources showing that the concept is notable. There is no plausible explanation given for how this could happen (the explanation in the article is confused and OR), and no external links to articles giving plausible explanations. Also, a search on google scholar, google news, and google books turn up nothing related to the concept as it is described in the article. (There is a obviously unrelated use in some material science articles.) The Fekete paper cited above, appears to be self-published, and is not about what the concept described in the biflation article, rather it is about a related concept which Fekete calls 'Devolution'. LK (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Appears to be original research. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I read the article by Dr. Antal Fekete. The quoted passage is entitled "Devolution" but the article is titled "Inflation and Deflation Can We have both at the same time". It does support the concept that both can exist simultaneously. It does not mention the term "Biflation" but it seems to describe the concept of Biflation as defined here at Wiki. As a side note, one of my recent graduate macro-economics seminars discussed, among other things the concept of Biflation. Although there was disagreement as to whether such a thing is occurring at present, most agreed that Biflation is a real concept, not yet widely accepted (as are many new economic ideas) and needs to be more widely explored and developed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.107.217.5 (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it with fire, and throw the socks in the wash. Non-notable neologism supported by perverse redefinition of standard terms. —SlamDiego←T 00:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Doing a Google search for “biflation” which excludes pages with the terms “wikipedia”, “*wiki*”, and “blog” results in just 81 hits, and these remaining hits do not appear to be notable. (They start with a couple at digitalganster.com.) It appears that this term is being kited like a check for which there are no covering funds. —SlamDiego←T 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An edit by the Lawrencekhoo An edit by another anon has unfairly made it seem that 209.107.217.23 has attempted to vote twice. —SlamDiego←T 01:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If you look at this version [14], you will see that 209.107.217.23 did vote twice (or perhaps didn't vote at all). I fixed it for him so that he voted once. He has since voted again (perhaps due to being unclear on what to do). I'll leave that for you to fix.(My mistake, that's a different IP) In the future, it would be good if you did your homework before accusing other editors of cheating. LK (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: What 209.107.217.23 did was to express himself twice, and the natural reading was that his second edit was a follow-up comment. Adding a “Keep” in front of that follow-up comment gave it the spurious appearance of an attempt to be a second vote. I did not accuse you of cheating; there are other explanations besides malice for your actions; I noted what you had actually done and what the consequences were. Also, please do not again reformat my comment about your edit as if it is a reply to the comment prior to it. —SlamDiego←T 08:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: What I did was to format and wikify the two separate comments, when I realized that they were the same person, I consolidated them. As is clear from the edit history, this was all done within a few minutes. You have accused me of misconduct and now you refuse to apologize. You hide behind obscurantist language, but the conduct and intent is clear. There was no reason for your commment, you picked out an intermediate edit and accused me of misconduct. Taken as a whole my edits wikified the text. You should come clean and apologize. Regardless, this is not the proper place for this argument, if you wish to pursue this matter, we should take this to the civility noticeboard. LK (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC
          • Comment: What you did wasn't simply to format two comments, but to add “Keep” in front of each as if each were a vote. Regardless of whether you did this deliberately or thoughtlessly (and I haven't presented a theory of your motives), that lent an unfair appearance that 209.107.217.23 had attempted to cast two votes. You are not owed an apology for an objective description of what you did and what resulted. The parties owed apologies here are 209.107.217.23 and me. The latter because, contrary to your accusations, I made no claim that you were deliberately unfair. There's nothing obscurantist in my very direct responses to you. —SlamDiego←T 08:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Off-topic Comment: As is clear from the edit history, what I did was to format and wikify what appeared to be two different votes from two anon IPs, adding keep as it seemed clear that the anon does want to vote. I then noticed that both comments were left by the same IP, so, I consolidated them into one vote. This was all done within a few minutes, before anyone else left any comments. There was no reason for you to leave the comment, "An edit by the Lawrencekhoo has unfairly made it seem that 209.107.217.23 has attempted to vote twice". What you did was to pull out an intermediate edit and then accuse me of misconduct. You have refused to retract this accusation, and refuse to apologize, instead further accusing me of misconduct. You should come clean and admit that your first accusation was a mistake. In any case this is not the correct forum for this, kindly keep this on your talk page where it belongs. LK (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment: No, not only is that not clear from the edit history; part of it is falsified by the edit history. I hadn't interpretted these as two separate votes before your edit, but I can accept an assertion that they appeared so to you. But youdidn't consolidate them into one vote; you placed and left a “Keep” in front of each. (It is the edit in which you slapped-on those “Keeps” — which you left in all of your subsequent editing — that I “pulled out”, because that's the edit that presents the two comments as each an attempt to vote.) When you reordered the comments to place the second right after the first, you didn't “consolidate them into one vote”; you left the “Keep” that you had placed in front of each. It stood there until I removed it more than a day later. I stand by exactly what I have said, and I have not denied saying anything that I have said. Your edit created an unfair appearance that 209.107.217.23 had attempted to vote twice. I never claimed that you did this in an attempt to “cheat”; I never claimed that you did this in an attempt to game the system. Nor do I even think that you are actually lying when you accuse me of such claims; instead, I think that you're still barreling ahead thoughtlessly. As to keeping it on my talk page, if you'll not bring it back here, I'll not bring it back here. —SlamDiego←T 09:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment In the hopes of not completely hijacking this page, I would direct anyone who is still interested in this tirade to look at Slamdiego's talk page here. Thank you, LK (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Off-topic Comment: In case anyone is interested, I have filed a Wikiquette alert on this issue here.
    • Retraction: It is since revealed that Lawrencekhoo in fact removed the second “Keep” that he had applied, and that a second “Keep” was re-added by 98.248.145.188. I therefore apologize to Lawrencekhoo, but reïterate that I never accused him of attempting to cheat or to game the system, nor am I now accusing 98.248.145.188 of attempting to cheat or to game the system. —SlamDiego←T 10:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The term 'biflation' is not uncommonly used in China. McCombs School of Business. McComb’s School of Business at the University of Texas-Austin
http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/news/mentions/march05.asp
Business in China Causes ‘Biflation’ in USA The Dallas Morning News, The Kansas City Star, March 13-31, 2005 Although China is heralded for benefiting Americans by producing low-cost consumer goods, consumption practices in China may actually cause other commodity prices to rise, experts say, resulting in “biflation.” While shoes and shirts made in China cost less, gasoline, electricity and maybe even houses in the U.S. cost more as a result of consumption in China. For example, last year, China accounted for 40 percent of the increase in global consumption of oil. This higher demand, of course, drives prices higher worldwide. As China becomes the world’s leading consuming nation, Michael Brandl, a lecturer of finance at McCombs, sees dangerous signs of a Chinese asset bubble. “Real estate prices have gone through the roof,” he said. “At the same time, China has poorly run banks with lots of non-performing loans.” A similar situation in Thailand created a financial crisis in Asia from 1997-1998. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.145.188 (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's a very different definition than that provided in an earlier comment. This clash of definitions illustrates that this isn't a notable term; we just have a small number of authors slapping-together the same portmanteau when they want to be cute. —SlamDiego←T 02:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And all of those instances (in the Dallas Morning News and Kansas City Star [15]) seem to stem from a coinage by a Chinese guy named Weijian Shan, which means it is a neologism. The word seems to have had separate unrelated etymologies, but all appear to be neologisms that have not yet gained widespread acceptance/usage. Strikehold (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Term has certainly been used, but it is a neologism used for different concepts, none of which seem to have gained enough traction to achieve notability individually. Strikehold (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biofascism

edit
Biofascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

POV, seems like an attempt to do "guilt by association" and possibly POV pushing by defining a blanket term, especially since the editor that created the article simultaneously broadened the definition of biologism in that article. An oline search indicates that "biofascism" has been used as a derogatory term, but under this article's definition it's more of a neologism. References are not up to RS standard for an issue such as this. (BTW, the article was a PROD supportedx2 before it was deprodded. Tomas e (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Neologism, and a barely coherent entry. WTF is "totalitarian organic politics"? (The reference for "totalitarian organic politics" is a letter to a media arts organization. Huh?). I see some Google hits, but most of them are misnomers or equally unclear neologisms. There is a taint of po-mo academia in this entry, this is a crowd extremely loose with neologisms. Say what you mean, people. Hairhorn (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is frankly silly. There may be some small number of trendy academics employing the term "biofascism," but it is still a ludicrous term. To suggest that discrimination on the basis of biological characteristics is innate to fascism, and innately fascistic in and of itself (which seems to be the entire point of this brief, and very poorly sourced article) is ahistorical in the extreme. America practiced an extensive regime of White supremacy as recently as, say, 1962, but was the USA really a (bio)fascist state in '62? Come on! KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as poorly-referenced neologism. Articles on neologisms have to meet a higher standard of notability - they have to show that the word in question is notable and widely used enough to deserve its own article. Here, I don't think that's the case - while the term 'biofascism' has been thrown around a bit as a political epithet, it doesn't seem to have any clear meaning in particular. Perhaps this could be merged or redirected somewhere, but it's not even clear where it should be merged to! (We do have an article on ecofascism, but that one is rather better referenced than this one, and anyway it doesn't seem to be quite the same concept.) Robofish (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Non-notable neologism. Google returns a total of 770 hits, mainly blogs. I can't find much in the way of reliable sourcing using the term. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --- neologism.Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism used to push a POV. --Loremaster (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2009 (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. JForget 23:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Gould

edit
Carol Gould (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This whole page looks like a dressed up resume. It's full of unverified value statements which may well have been written by the subject, or the subject's mother! — Preceding unsigned comment added by English roG (talk • contribs) 2009/07/29 22:24:21

— English roG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Nominated by an SPA with no unrelated edits, no bona fide arguments made for deletion, subject appears notable enough. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2009 (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) 07:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Logan (playwright)

edit
David Logan (playwright) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable spam. This article was started and maintained by sockpuppets from Brisbane (where David Logan hails), suggesting incredibly bad faith COI. The addition of David Logan references to all mention of Dracula in wikipedia suggests a concerted spamming attempt. Best have all of it taken off wikipedia. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Twinkle tried notifying the people who've actively maintained this article, but I think as they've all been banned, it encountered a bug.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The ISBNs and play/book names draw a pretty clear zilch on google. The author is published by something called Brisbane Dramatic Arts Company, and I can't find that company publishing anything else than his writings, suggesting that Brisbane Dramatic Arts Company is Mr. Loagan's laser printer. Not a single reliable source or evidence of notability in sight. Nice doggy (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. I also agree there are COI/vanity issues. Please note when Googling that there are a couple of David Logans who are likely notable and get a lot of g-hits, including John David Logan a very notable award-winning Hollywood writer and playwright. However, IMHO this particular David Logan is not notable as a playwright, historian, novelist, director, teacher or an academic. The article has been tagged multiple times by different editors for article issues (notability, sources etc) but each time socks repeatedly remove the tags without comment and without resolving any of the identified issues, so I think it's best that this is going through AFD. Sarah 01:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Sarah. Orderinchaos 10:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am really amazed at what appears to be a very libellous attack on the repuation of a respected academic and writer. I wonder how many of the above editors have ever bothered to read anything that Dr. Logan has written or just engage in vindictive libellous attacks? Dr. Logan's works are in university libraries and schools. He has also lectured at international congresses.

User talk:Alerox75 17:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC) — Alerox75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

correction--because the name is very common, I searched only for the works indicated in the article as particularly notable, and failed to find them. I see from what follows there are some, but I do not see that they are at all notable. DGG (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a very serious situation developing here where a number of editors are seriously maligning Dr. Logan with gross inaccuracies.

A search of the following catalogues produces these results on Dr. Logan's publications: State Library of Queensland where he is listed as a significant writer for Queensland. There are 10 works listed:

http://onesearch.slq.qld.gov.au/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?ct=facet&fctN=facet_creator&fctV=Logan%2c+D&fn=search&ct=search&vid=SLQ&indx=1&dum=true&vl(freeText0)=David%20Logan&srt=rank&vl(D45500790UI0)=any&vl(1UI0)=contains&vl(73443712UI1)=all_items&frbg=&tab=default_tab&mode=Basic&scp.scps=scope%3A(slq_digitool)%2Cscope%3A(SLQ)

http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Search/Home?lookfor=David+Logan&type=author&limits=format%3ABook&submit=Find

Dr. Logan's works are listed clearly at the National Library of Australia.

Libraries Australia website: http://www.librariesaustralia.nla.gov.au

Also list Dr. Logan's works as does WorldCat. We're All In This Together http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=isbn%3A9780980456349

All other publications are listed.

[[User talk: davidcs73, 09:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcs73 (talk • contribs) — Davidcs73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It would seem there is a very serious miscarriage of justice happening here to libel and malign Dr. Logan. I would suggest it stops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcs73 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC) — Davidcs73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This edit [16] demonstrates that Davidcs73 edits from an identical IP range and location to the Finneganw/Aussiebrisguy sockpuppeteer. DrKiernan (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finneganw/Davidcs/Aussiebrisguy etc, editors and admins have been flagging this article as having issues and not meeting Wikipedia's policies since you created it three years ago but you've resisted any attempt to try to address issues and have engaged socks to protect it in your preferred form. The bottom line is as they stand these articles don't conform with notability guidelines or the verifiability and biographies of living people policies and unless they are brought in line with policy and guideline they can't stay here. Having books held by the NLA does not make the book or author notable. Please read the notability guidelines, particularly Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (books) which will help you address concerns about notability. Please look particularly at the "criteria" section and then please explain under which criteria this teacher and his book, characters etc qualify under Wikipedia's criteria as "notable" academic, book, characters etc. I understand this isn't a great experience and we can blank this discussion at the end if you feel maligned but we need to address and resolve the issues surrounding this subject which you have been blatantly pushing on Wikipedia for several years now. I'm afraid at this stage it looks like trying to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. If that's not the case then we would certainly welcome you addressing concerns about these articles. Sarah 16:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that both Davidcs and Alerox, both users created only to talk about this topic, have magically made a mistake about which David Logan we are talking about. If you're sockpuppets, which I think you are, take a good look at yourself, David. Wikipedia is global. People here are from all over the world. Is this debate the kind of publicity you want? Remember that this discussion is preserved forever.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately the influx of blatant socks is pretty consistent with the past history of this user. Sarah 16:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Logan's publications are very close to self-published. When you Google "Brisbane Dramatic Arts Company" it only seems to bring up references to Logan's books, which this Arts Company apparently published. [17] It's very strange and there doesn't seem to be such an Arts Company outside Logan's books. That's something he's going to need to address if he wants to argue that they're notable books. Sarah 16:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As somebody who knows of the work of Australian writers, I have had the pleasure of reading different plays and novels. I have read many such works. Dr. Logan and others write well. Wikipedia does well to have an entry on Australian writers. Dr Logan is a respected educator and writer. I find it strange therefore to see an attempt being made to discredit him by wanting to remove information about him that is there for the benefit of others. That is after all what Wikipedia is there for so others can benefit. Removing information greatly harms us all. I can only put this attempt down to the fact that some very ignorant people have very little to do with their time and obtain pleasure from injuring the reputation of others. I find this an appalling practice that needs to be condemned. I have seen this sort of thing attempted by disaffected people with severe social problems. It would appear that there are a few of them here commenting on this page. They really should get a life.

User talk: Alexey-Chernykh 08:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.179.135.223 (talk) [reply]

  • Delete Not notable, fails WP:AUTHOR. There are several accounts posting here, but no one has provided any evidence that subject satisfies WP:GNG. The academic achievements are fine, but they fail WP:PROF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnuniq (talk • contribs) 12:41, 5 August 2009 [18]
note the only books by the David Logan in question at either of the links above are published by the Brisbane Dramatic Arts Company. None of the other works are remotely within his field, and most fall outside any possible date for him to have published. It doesn't indicate any notability at all. Any book by an Australian can be to these libraries if donated. It's getting real world unethical for someone to pass off other people's works as his own. Do we know if there's any way we can check on the truth of his academic credentials? There's enough grounds for suspecting they might be false. The article page is very careful not to mention exactly where his PhD and DLitt come from. Could any of the accounts defending David Logan oblige us? After all, a DLitt is no ordinary degree - it usually is given to esteemed academics - with a long history of publication (in peer-reviewed journals). Which he doesn't appear to have. If he's an academic fraud as well, it might be worth notifying the libraries which hold his books.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another note. I've done a few searches for "David Logan" and the terms PhD and DLitt and the names of the universities mentioned in his article. Nothing comes up. This may be a genuine case of real-life academic fraud on our hands. (He calls himself "Dr" on a couple of sites).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And another. No evidence to be found of his attendance, let alone his speaking at the International Drama/Theatre and Education Association gathering in Hong Kong. Are we dealing with a kind of Walter Mitty character here? (Or perhaps more like Jeffrey Archer without the money or independent reviews?) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dracula's Return

edit
AfDs for this article:
Dracula's Return (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Daria Borisovna Semovsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semovsky Palace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alexander Pavlovich Semovsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Spam. David Logan's page is also up for deletion as non-notable spam work of sockpuppets. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note This non-notable book has been spammed across wikipedia.
Vsevolod, this is a pretty extensive problem and I think it might be best to deal with it in one AFD as our friend has been busy creating a bunch of articles about this book and it's characters etc. Could you please bundle Daria Borisovna Semovsky, Semovsky Palace and Alexander Pavlovich Semovsky. There might be more, I'm still looking but I think as these are all about this book, it would be best to bundle them all together rather than have individual articles for each one. Cheers, Sarah 02:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good idea. Er...how do I that? (Or can you do it?)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would do it but I've run out of time for now and have to head off. There's instructions here Wikipedia:AFD#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion. It's best to do it as soon as possible so the people who review can comment on all of them otherwise it gets a bit tricky, but if you have problems doing it, I will come and help you when I get back or perhaps someone else could kindly help. Also, there's a pre-existing discussion on AN about this user and I've raised this spam issue there Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic_ban_on_User:Finneganw_at_Anna_Anderson. I've reverted the most obvious problems of spamming, where he's added his book into very loosely related articles but I think we're going to have to look into this more closely. Cheers, Sarah 03:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bundled. DrKiernan (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I didn't have time to sit down and focus on this.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Father of the Elder Princess of Saxony

edit
Father of the Elder Princess of Saxony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research. Oscarthecat (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2009 (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. As far as I can tell, no evidence was advanced during this discussion to establish the subject's notability. Thus, I see that consensus is to delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Quall

edit
James Quall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


  • This article lacks notability as well as many other issues. Speedy declined so it has been taken to AFD.
  • Delete unless someone can provide proper evidence of notability. Facebook, Myspace (or any personal websites maintained by the subject) are not evidence of notability - I'm sure there are plenty obscure teenage girls out there with even more facebook friends than this subject has, but this does not mean we need to have a page about them here. Bonfire of vanities (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the number of facebook friends, an evidence-free assertion that he "may just BARELY meet the notability guidelines" nor where Wikipedia appears in web search results for the subject's name, are anything like valid arguments for keeping or deletion, so let's try to get this discussion on track by looking for sources. Any notable contemporary American entertainer would be expected to attract some coverage in sources indexed by Google News, and such a search finds 14 sources mentioning the subject:
Does all this amount to enough notability to keep the article? Perhaps the amount of coverage could just about be said to be enough, but the fact that it is universally negative means that if we are to base the article on the reliable sources that I could find it would violate neutrality policy, which is especially important when dealing with articles about living people. Unless anyone can find any balancing positive coverage I think I'll go with a delete. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I see thanks to a message on my talk page, that the article that was actually deleted was only a redirect. The article was moved twice during the AFD discussion without being mentionned here. The two other titles will be deleted but in the future please mention the changes and add them to the nomination if necessary. Thanks. --JForget 15:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Just add another notes - the other entries deleted were List of Khatri Gotras (the actual article with the content) and List of Khatri (Gotras, Clans, Tribes) (another redirect) --JForget 15:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Khatri Gotras and clans

edit
List of Khatri Gotras and clans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List has no point in existing... Category:Khatri clans is enough. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete convert to template style. Antonio López (desu) 16:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Lukes

edit
Michelle Lukes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers notability test. Oscarthecat (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2009 (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) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror Image Art

edit
Mirror Image Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research / neologism. Furthermore, creator is claiming copyright on associated pictures he's uploaded on this subject. Oscarthecat (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi (Two and a Half Men)

edit
Naomi (Two and a Half Men) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no indication of why this character needs an article if this character was a guest star, there is no need for this artical. Pedro thy master (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2009 (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. Those editors in favour of keeping the article failed to show that the topic meets any notability guidelines, or to argue that the notability issue was mitigated by other factors.  Skomorokh  16:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhisiart Tal-e-bot

edit
AfDs for this article:
Rhisiart Tal-e-bot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article managed to slip through the net last time (it was deleted from the French and other Wikipedias), but I'm not sure it should have been allowed to stay here. The article is a WP:VANITY article; Cymrukernow the creator and main contributor is Rhisiart Tal-e-bot. Information only he could know fills most of the content of the article. The only sources used in the article for information is a minor pressure group which Tal-e-bot himself writes for (including a personal Yahoo Group). The other information which Tal-e-bot has put in the article in unreferencable, because he is not WP:NOTABLE enough to have such biographical information published in mainstream media sources. He works as a school teacher and has never been elected to any post anywhere in the UK, not even as a village parish councillor failing WP:POLITICIAN in an epic manner. Yorkshirian (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: "seems to"? it fails absolutely every single one of our WP:GNG requirements. The only biographical sources are from ones which Tal-e-bot has placed on the internet in his Yahoo and other groups, the rest is just information he himself put in the article which are not in any media source. Complete vanity article of a nobody. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Why else would this be acceptable use of Wikipedia, when other political groups are disallowed from hijacking it as a propaganda dispenser? Surely, if this met notability, then there would be independent sources showing this. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Still fails every single point in the WP:GNG, even after culling. Do you have a rationale as to how the article would pass our policies. These are the ones it most specifically fails;
  1. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]
  2. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2]
  3. "Sources,"[3] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[4]
  4. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sony BMG discography

edit
Sony BMG discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sony BMG (2004-2008) was one of the big four music companies globally, with dozens of record label operations in the US and UK, and with local repertoire right across the globe. The company "Sony BMG", through its many label groups and record labels, released 1/4 of the world's music in its existence. I don't see how this page can meaningfully capture the ginormous scope that is Sony BMG. Album pages are classified under their respective labels and label categories. This page also starts in the 80s when it wasn't until 2004 that the company was formed as "Sony BMG", and so I automatically removed the few listings under the 80s and 90s. Moreover 90% of the random listings appear to have no connection to the Sony or BMG labels, in fact, other unrelated companies are indicated in brackets. Therefore this page is completely bogus and is an act of deception/vandalism. Imperatore (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. Indiscriminate list, would be far too large to maintain, no sources. This was created by the same user who also created Atlantic Records discography, a narrow, clumsy, rap-centric list that was maybe 5% complete and would've been browser-crashingly long if finished. There is also no precedent for such lists to even exist, as they'd be far too wide in scope — should we include Robin Lee's Black Velvet album, released in 1990 and so obscure that Allmusic doesn't even have the track list for it? What about the Zac Brown Band's The Foundation, which is only distributed by Atlantic? This one is probably even worse than the Atlantic one, as Sony BMG owns about eight trillion labels. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. There are hundreds of releases by Sony BMG and a list of them is not very useful. A category already exists for this type of information. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as impossibly long and uncompletable. Hairhorn (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TenPoundHammer makes a good argument, and given the example of similar previous lists this should be removed. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misleading and terminally incomplete; and even if comprehensively completed would be pretty useless as a source of information. ~ mazca talk 16:42, 2 August 2009 (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 Nomination Withdrawn. Spartaz Humbug! 08:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Marshall (disambiguation)

edit
Wayne Marshall (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominate for deletion Unnecessary page as there is already a hatnote to Wayne Marshall (DJ) at the primary page (Wayne Marshall. Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Marshall (conductor) is not the primary page. The deejay is just as notable as conductor is. So I oppose, cause where should Wayne Marshall redirect? Readers might be looking for either of two. Netrat (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe primary page is the one at Wayne Marshall, with no parentheses. What do you mean, where should Wayne Marshall redirect? It doesn't need to redirect anywhere, it's an article about the conductor and should stay as it is. The fact that the conductor is at the primary page shows that he is considered to be more notable than the DJ. They may be looking for either of two, but if they type in Wayne Marshall and they want the DJ, then there's a hatnote at the top of the page linking directly to the DJ. The alternative, as it was, was someone would type in Wayne Marshall looking for the DJ, go to conductor's article which is at Wayne Marshall, click on hatnote to disambiguation page, and then click on link to DJ, taking them longer. Boleyn (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean Wayne Marshall should redirect to Wayne Marshall (disambiguation) since niether of musicians are much more notable than the other. Netrat (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the conductor is at the primary page shows that he is considered to be more notable than the DJ. - considered by whom? Anyway, he is not. The only reason why the conductor is at the primary page is because his entry was written earlier. Netrat (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is with internal links to Wayne Marshall page from other articles. Readers are likely to get the wrong article. Netrat (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see you've now moved the disambiguation page to the primary page, without any discussion or consultation - that isn't recommended. If you go to Wayne Marshall and then What links here, you'll see that a list of articles which are probably pointing to the wrong target now; please correct this as you should do after moving a page and initiate a discussion on conductor's page and link to it on DJ's page to the issue of comparative notability as DJ has mentions in only 2 other articles, evidence will need to be put forward. Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Withdraw nomination while mess is sorted at the two pages. Boleyn (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just checked this, and you know what? No Wikipedia articles link to Wayne Marshall (conductor). Only userpages and wikipedia projects pages. On the other hand, there actually are links to Wayne Marshall (deejay) from real articles, such as records by Sean Paul and Jamie Foxx where he's featured. Netrat (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed all links that linked to Wayne Marshall. 9 articles link to conductor and 12 articles link to deejay. Anyone still thinks the conductor is the primary entry? I won't object deleting Wayne Marshall (disambiguation) if its contents is moved to Wayne Marshall. Netrat (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amefurashi

edit
Amefurashi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Long-term uncited. I am not sure this creature even exists, as a google search seems biased toward an unrelated work with a similar name. Mintrick (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2009 (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. After analyzing the agruments of both sides, I think there is no consensus to keep or delete this article. AdjustShift (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communist genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is blatant, ridiculous POV propaganda and an unneeded fork/original research. Its just different instances of violence caused by Communism and put it under the umbrella of "genocide"; furthermore it is extreme POV to associate actions of individual regimes with communism as a whole. The page was created as soapboxing by a user whose sole edits so far are POV pushing on Communism. Every system of government is responsible for many deaths throughout history, I don't see why Communism must be singled out. Furthermore, the deaths that occurred under communism was not genocide. Triplestop x3 17:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nominator, I apologize for having gotten carried away on this. I still think this page should go, but I will be removing this from my watch list. Cheers, Triplestop x3 01:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize

  1. Notability There are not enough RS to establish that deaths under communist regimes constitute genocide, nor that "Communist genocide" is a notable term. Furthermore, the two words used together doesn't make "Communist genocide" as a term notable, it just means "genocide by communists".
  2. POV It is incorrect to associate Communism in general with mass killings of individual regimes. "the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie" != genocide, besides most killed by Communist regimes were not rich. As defined in the Wikipedia page, Communism (from Latin: communis = "common") is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general. Does it say anything about mass killings?
  3. Trolling This is the work of a banned crosswiki vandal in a blatant attempt to incite conflict in a controversial subject
  1. Synthesis This is a bunch of sources, unrelated in the definition of "communist genocide", attempting to advocate the aforementioned unnotable concept.
"Communist genocide refers to the genocide carried out by communist regimes across the world. From the very beginning, communism forged a new order based on genocide" Wow, thats about as POV as it gets. Triplestop x3 15:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then fix the article. The fact that an article might have some POV in it is not a sufficient reason to delete it.radek (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article, by it's very nature, pushes a POV that can't be removed. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. And how can an article be POV "by it's very nature" - was it decided at the beginning of time by the Grand Creator (or Grand Someone) that this particular article was going to be POV by "it's very nature"? What are you talking about? There's nothing POV about the "nature" of this article, and if there is POV in the article itself it can be removed. Not a reason to delete.radek (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's POV in the same way "List of all Republican Serial Killers" would be inherently POV. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Given the nature of the subject, there is going to be clear bias in the votes. I ask that this be taken into account. Triplestop x3 03:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - why should the nominator be allowed to put a very POV, biased, pronouncement at the top of the page (which makes sure that everyone will read it, as opposed to sifting through the individual comments and votes) asserting that somehow the voting is "biased" (which obviously, according to Triplestop, means that it hasn't gone according to her/his wishes). This is an attempt at manipulating the outcome with a grievous disregard of the actual votes. It borders on disruptive editing.radek (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote at all. What he has requested is that the Admin remember this, and disregard comments if the user posting them seemed very biased and did not have good reasoning. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you mean it's not a vote "at all"? It's a bunch of people voting, isn't it? How does that make it not a vote? Obviously, if you take one side, you're going to think that the people who vote on the other side are wrong. But to jump from that to the conclusion that the other votes should not be counted - i.e. only the "right" votes should be counted - is ridiculous (and also appropriately fitting, given the subject matter).radek (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another note The creator of this page is a banned user, a serial crosswiki vandal. As this page was clearly an attempt to troll, perhaps G5 could apply here. Triplestop x3 20:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary note - the nature of the creator should mean, I think, that the default should be delete, not keep, if the judgement is "no consensus". Rd232 talk 21:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the sock puppet investigation as well as the user page of the creator. He wasn't banned, he was blocked indefinitely. There's a subtle distinction (at least some have said as much before) between the two, and a ban is quite different. If you read the blocking admin's explanation too, it undermines the notion that everything this user touches is cursed, which is not how G5 works. Shadowjams (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of the creator (whoever s/he is - I have no idea) has no barring on a delete/keep vote what so ever! What are you making up here? There's been plenty of editing at the article since it was created. The default, per Wiki policy, is keep if no consensus is reached.radek (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page is a clear attempt to incite conflict in an issue of this controversial nature. If we can't agree to keep it, then don't feed the troll and trash it. Nothing of value would be lost Triplestop x3 02:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it goes without saying that we're way beyond speedy territory. There's obviously a lot of debate about a simple delete, there's certainly not consensus for a speedy at this point. Not to mention, G5 requires "having no substantial edits by others." Shadowjams (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate that concern, and I don't think it's wrong for you to have nominated it, but you're pretty bent on getting rid of this article. I'm just suggesting we don't lose sight of the big picture (encyclopedia). Shadowjams (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep Communism killed 100 million people which is more than Nazism. Communist genocide is a fact. Please keep this article. The article is nominated for deletion minutes after its creation. I am still working on it. --Joklolk (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC) — Joklolk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Comment struck - banned user.[reply]

  • — Note to closing admin: Joklolk (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You can work on it, but there is nothing of encyclopedic value here--just a big ole soapbox. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the material is appropriate, but it's being assembled in an inappropriate way; Communist genocide falls under WP:NEO. Mintrick (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is WP:SYNTH, and the article seems to be used for some kind of advocacy. I have found absolutely no evidence that the term "communist genocide" (as referring to an universal concept) even exists in credible sources. Taking a quick look at some of the references used in the article, there is no indication that it is even a real term. For example, the article says Former Vietnamese judge Nguyen Cao Quyen who was a victim of communist political repression after communist victory in Vietnam War describes communist genocide as "genocide of entire classes" (clearly implying that the source is talking about a universal concept "communist genocide", but the source actually says: Since 1945, the Vietnamese Communists exterminated religious leaders, assassinated opposition leaders, killed intellectuals, businessmen, and even peasants who disagreed with their ideology. These terrorist acts were crimes against humanity and the genocide of entire classes. Thus, it does not use the term "communist genocide" at all. It seems that this article is being used as a vehicle to invent a new concept and give credibility to it. I'm sure all of this material is present in the articles about the different genocides, so there is absolutely no need for this advocating, original synthesis article. Offliner (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable concept - used in 300+ books. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those refer to specific incidents where communist regimes have committed genocide, not an overarching concept of "communist genocide". This article is about the latter. Mintrick (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I haven't found any indication that the latter even exists. Can someone please point out a source which really discusses the universal concept "communis genocide"? Offliner (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a lot more here than the BB, which is just one of the sources--the question is whether there is a type of genocide characteristic of Communist regimes; personally, I have my doubts about it as a specific common factors but it's a well-known concept. DGG (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem with the article is that it's original synthesis. For example, is there a source which explicitly states that "during the Russian Civil War the Bolsheviks engaged in a campaign of genocide against the Don Cossacks" is part of an universal "communist genocide"? All of the incidents listed here are covered in their own articles, so why do we need this article? Here we are replicating content that is already present elsewhere, and putting it all together in a very questionable way. Offliner (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
are you challenging whether there was a campaign of genocide against the Don Cossacks, or whether the government that engaged it it was Communist?DGG (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read my comment. I'm not denying either. Offliner (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't indicate the overall concept is notable though. Triplestop x3 03:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in that article that would confirm that "communist genocide" is a specific term or a concept. The article mentions it only once, in the title. The term itself is not discussed in the article at all. Offliner (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That chapter was found with a search of Communist genocide in Google Books. Apparently there is only one hit in the entire book. On page 238, the words Communist and genocide both appear but not together. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we already have separate articles about those genocides. This article is about the universal concept of "communist genocide" - of which I haven't seen any indication that such concept (or even the term) exists. Offliner (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Holocaust is also a "democide" according to Rummel's definition, by your reasoning the Holocaust was not genocide? Quite a number of authors such as Stéphane Courtois, Benjamin Valentino, John Gray, Eric Weitz, Ronit Lenṭin and Rebecca Knuth have made the connection between mass killing in a number of communist regimes, the connection being that communist ideology was used as the justification for the killing. --Martintg (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the works by Stéphane Courtois, Benjamin Valentino, John Gray, Eric Weitz, Ronit Lenṭin and Rebecca Knuth. --Martintg (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

edit
  • Delete per Mintrick's comment. Communism as an ideology is no more responsible for genocide than capitalism or any number of religions, none of which have their own genocide articles. The relevant information in the article should be fragmented and moved to its appropriate article. Honestly, the cold war is over, we all know communism sucks. Can we keep the propaganda and ancient ideology wars out of wikipeida please? LokiiT (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a highly subjective, uneducated POV fork. Aside from fully agreeing with Abductive's arguments, I also don't see any factual evidence that "Communist genocide refers to the genocide carried out by communist regimes across the world." All books seem to use the phrase trivially and none of them seem to refer to "Communist genocide" as a universal concept. As for Google Books, it also shows a whole bunch of results for "capitalist atrocities", "socialist monstrosity", "capitalist genocide", "socialist genocide", "economic slaughter" and "drunken Batman". Let's concentrate on specific evidence, not on WP:GHITS. — Rankiri (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not abductive synth, noted British political philosopher John N. Gray actually discusses the concept of "Communist genocide" here. --Martintg (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Abductive. If the concept is notable, please show me one single academic publication that deals with "communist genocide" as a topic, not mentions it in passing in relation to specific events which may or may not be a part of a bigger picture. Communist regimes committed many atrocities, yes, but it is not our job as Wikipedians to collect them all in one place and present as a concept. That's a textbook example of what synthesis is.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:19, August 5, 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:SYNTH. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the concept is not synth, noted British political philosopher John N. Gray publisged the concept of "Communist genocide" here. --Martintg (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – original research used to push an anti-communist POV. If there is to be an article about "communist genocide", there needs to be material covering that concept itself and not list various genocides—regardless of how obvious it may seem—and then draw the arrow yourself. MuZemike 15:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Offliner and per Mintrick's comments furthermore. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and only because the article points out, correctly, that there are laws that use the term "communist genocide" specifically (the Czech law referred to in the article provides that "The person who publicly denies, puts in doubt, approves or tries to justify Nazi or Communist genocide or other crimes of Nazis or Communists will be punished by prison of 6 months to 3 years", from [19]. Strictly speaking, genocide is the eradication of a particular race or culture, not the slaughter of people who oppose a regime. Mandsford (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what the article is talking about, its all a POV fork against communism. Triplestop x3 18:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But that is not what the article is about, its a highly POV against communism. Read the first sentence. Triplestop x3 18:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Defined as what exactly? And by whom? You? As one can see from your edit, there is a multitude of original research going on in this article, and I would stress that others keep an eye on it. --Russavia Dialogue 22:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poeticbent, I know that WP says "comment about the contributions, not the editor". But this particular vote of yours is so dumb that it raises questions about your intelligence. Read WP article on genocide and you will see it was not defined by Marx or Engels, in fact it was not in any use before 1944. What you probably meant was that Marx and Engels condoned terrorist acts in some cases as a revolutionary tool of the proletariat, and Lenin suggested that dictatorship of the proletariat was a necessary evil. (Igny (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Igny, what you are saying is that you are fully aware of and understand the Wikipedia policy on civility and no personal attacks but then you proceed to break that very policy in a most insulting manner. Your comment is way out of line and I ask that you strike it.radek (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly there are actions of communist regimes which qualify as genocide. "Democide" (to the mention of that alternative) is a term used only on WP to lobby that killing millions is something other than genocide. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  00:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of academic use of "communist genocide" to refer to communist acts in Cambodia and elsewhere. Not to be flippant, but I genuinely fail to see what Offliner means by not a "universal" term. Certainly it is well used on this planet, which is all that counts. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  00:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only used on WP? Of course a simple Google search does lead one to call shenanigans on your laughable claim. --Russavia Dialogue 00:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please attempt to keep your comments civil. Thanks. --Martintg (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Russavia, feel free to insult me when "democide" appears as a word in a main-line dictionary, for example, at www.merriman-webster.com. Articles should not be written for the general public, the bulk of our readers, using words they can't find in their dictionary. Whereas "genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" is clearly defined and—based on communist eradication of classes of individuals—clearly applies. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  13:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice userbox on your userpage also. Triplestop x3 00:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. To your point that it's an anti-communist fork, yes, certainly "genocide from the start" can be toned down if not directly cited to a scholarly source. However, the slaughter of millions is notable enough to merit its own article as a sub-topic under the repressive actions of (most) communist regimes. "Communists" is not "genocidal maniacs" by definition—if the Italian communists ever came to power, I rather doubt they would emulate the Khmer Rouge. But deleting this article denies the use of mass murder as an instrument of repression. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  13:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term is readily found in book titles and used in scholarly journals. "Communist genocide" is not a juxtaposition created just to smear communism on Wikipedia. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  13:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A POV fork of what? --Martintg (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Genocide, Communism, probably others. ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of "Communist genocide", linking the genocides committed by various communist governments and attributing the phenomenon as a feature of Communist policy is published here. --Martintg (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above book only mentions the phrase "Communist genocide" in the following sentence: "The action taken against the Ukranian language was, as one author has said, "systematic linguacide," one of the methods of Communist genocide in the field of culture.[20] This in turn illustrates an important point about how the term is actually used by most of these sources. — Rankiri (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case you missed it, please double check the title of the book Genocide in the USSR: studies in group destruction. In case you're saying that this doesn't entitle an article about general Communist genocide, it should be on the Soviet genocide - Genocide in the USSR only?--Termer (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First of all, this article is not a POV-fork of anything. Some users are suggesting communist genocide is a neologism, but it is not. The term is in use from as early as [21] 1951. There are two entire books written on communist genocide: The Communist Genocide in Romania, by Gheorghe Boldur-Latescu and Murder of A Gentle Land, The Untold Story of Communist Genocide in Cambodia, by Barron, John & Paul, Anthony. The term is used by respected academics like Nathaniel Weyl [22]. This is an universal concept like Nazi genocide. Both the Nazis and communists orchestrated genocide from their different beliefs, but the result were same. Whether it was USSR, China or Cambodia, the reason behind the genocide was communist beliefs. Joklolk (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finally, Communist genocide is an accepted fact by most post-communist Eastern European governments. And there are instances of charges of communist genocide as in the case of Arnold Meri. Estonian charged with Communist genocide. [23] Several countries have laws which explicitly make it illegal to deny communist genocide. It proves communist genocide is an accepted fact by many governments. Joklolk (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Nazis deliberately and systematically killed people of a certain race. Purging the Jews was a core belief of Hitler. The Communists did no such thing. And so the two words were used together coincidentally a couple times. Doesn't make it notable. It's still original research by you. You just put together different instances of violence caused by Communism and put it under the umbrella of "genocide". Triplestop x3 03:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, communists deliberately and systematically killed people of a certain class with certain political affiliations. Purging the riches was a core belief of communism (Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin's atrocities against Kulaks and so on and so forth). Both the Nazis and communists did not tolerate any political opposition. And it is certainly not OR given the multiple references, don't you see what is written in the references? Your unsubstantiated claim of OR is going to be repeatitive and unproductive in this discussion. Joklolk (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not genocide. You're use of the word atrocities suggests that this page is an attempt by you to make Communism look bad by pushing your POV by creating a purely negative page on Communism. Triplestop x3 03:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is just your personal opinion "that is not genocide". The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as "...acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group..."
Communists certainly intended to destroy national groups, hence they committed genocide, as the literature shows [24]. --Martintg (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And is what they did widely regarded as genocide? No. Triplestop x3 21:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note on canvassing User:Triplestop is involved in vote canvassing [25] and this was done by User:Offliner also [26]. --Joklolk (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Comment struck; banned user[reply]

No, I am trying to invite further discussion on whether or not this page violates Wikipedia's policies. Did is say "PLEASE VOTE DELETE ON THIS?" No. Triplestop x3 03:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting to the NPOV noticeboard is not canvassing because it is merely publicizing the discussion and is not aimed at a group that has any specific point of view. And canvassing is defined as "sending messages to many Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion", so Offliner's single posting to a user talk page is not canvassing. (See WP:Canvass). So let;s get back to the topic.
The examples show that scholars have written about genocide in various Communist-ruled countries but there is no specific concept of Communist genocide. Notice the books refer to genocide in specific countries. There is no RS book about Communist genocide that links genocide in various countries to Communist ideology, unlike Nazi ideology.
The Four Deuces (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not true. Many books do make a link between communist ideology and genocide, see Eric D. Weitz's book A century of genocide for example. --Martintg (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting: the phrase "communist genocide" picks up no results with a thorough search of the book in the link provided. The first sentence reads "Ideology alone is never a sufficient explanation for such massive developments as genocide." It then goes on to explain the particular circumstances that explained the (Vietnam-overthrown) Cambodia example... PasswordUsername (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed if you read further the paragraph states it was a combination of reactions similar to what moved the Nazi system from discrimination to genocide, so the author seems to be implying that Nazi ideology alone is an insufficient explanation too. Either way, ideology is a factor, the question is to what degree. Communist ideology promotes the destruction of national groups, no question about that, and destruction of national groups is genocide according to Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. --Martintg (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. There is no such implication on my reading of the source – and it discusses Cambodia in particular! Which national groups did Karl Marx advocate destroying? PasswordUsername (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is well known that Karl Marx was a racist. --Martintg (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not well known:

"The notion of race plays no clear part in his social thought, though he makes free use of the term, if often in contexts not involving the modern division of humanity into biologically defined groups..."

"Surely a decisive consideration is the fact, as we will see below, that Marx explicitly rjeects racial division or hierarchy." [27]

Which national groups did he advocate destroying?
PasswordUsername (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is about implementation of communism also. If Ukrainian genocide, Cambodian genocide are not genocide, then what is genocide? And the motives behind these were communist beliefs. Joklolk (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Communist beliefs =/= genocide. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is boring. Communist beliefs caused implementation of communism which caused genocide. Simple. Joklolk (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accordingly, capitalist beliefs resulted in the implementation of the Native American genocide. Wait, that one doesn't even get its own article on Wikipedia. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's a good catch Password. But that means that someone should create the article Genocide of Native Americans rather than a reason for deleting this one.radek (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "On the Jewish Question" Marx spoke of the Jews as a nationality in highly abusive and venomous language, heaping abuse on their religion, calling the Jews a "chimerical nationality" which he saw destined to disappear as a spiritual and cultural entity.--Martintg (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Name a Jewish genocide scholars credit communism with. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marx was against the Czechs and Southern Slaves too, stating:"Because the Czechs and the Southern Slavs were then 'reactionary nations', 'Russian outposts' in Europe, outposts of absolutism … to give support to the national movements of the Czechs and Southern Slavs at that time would have been to give indirect support to Tsarism, a most dangerous enemy of the revolutionary movement in Europe." --Martintg (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Jesus. Marx regarded the Slavic nations looking to imperial Russia as outposts of tyrannical political systems in the 19th century, and thought it a good thing to give Slavs support, but not at the time when they identified with the czarist Russian Empire. Why are you piling on with this instead of answering my question? Incidentally, he took a pretty optimistic position on Russia in his ultimate years. And? PasswordUsername (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This anonymous editor has very few edits and has made a questionable edit recently: [28]. Offliner (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IP has been blocked. Offliner (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random heading to split the page for easier editing

edit
  • Keep and expand. I have a feeling that those supporting deletion have not even bothered to do a simple Google Scholar search. The term "Communist genocide" has been in use for more than fifty years, so how can it be neologism? There are several monographs and dozens of scientific articles dealing with the communist genocide, quite a few dedicated to the topic. It is a term used even within last ten days by newspapers [29]. Several countries have laws dealing with communist genocide. So claiming that it didn't happen, isn't notable or the term doesn't exist is quite frankly, ridiculous and laughable. If the article is POV in your opinion, add opposing viewpoints - but that does not make article suitable for deletion, Wikipedia isn't censored. All other given reasons for deletion come down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sander Säde 06:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that article he's referring to a genocide by communists - that's certainly not the same as "communist genocide", and only a fool or someone looking for something to support their point of view would use it to mean such a thing. I assume the latter. It's depressing to see how many people there are on the "keep" side of this AfD with such blatant, blatant POVs that I would've thought they'd have enough sense to stay away. I hope that the closing admin takes a gander through peoples' userpages and uses things like, uhh, massive anti-communist screeds as evidence of some form of heavy bias here. Note that I'm not directing that at you, Sander. Ironholds (talk) 07:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I very strongly suggest you stop personal attacks and repeating "closing admin must look at userpages, not arguments". That is simply not done in Wikipedia. Closing admin will weight arguments on both delete and keep and make a decision based on arguments.
Please note that I did not say the news article is dedicated to discussing communist genocide, I said the term is used in there.
We've established the term isn't neologism. We've established it has wide coverage in the scientific literature. We've established that there are laws dealing with denial of communist genocide. We've established there has been a recent use in both newspapers and scientific literature. We've established that Wikipedia has no article dealing with this topic, so not a content fork. There is no doubt that we need an umbrella article dealing with phenomenon that occurred all over the communist countries. So.. what is the remaining reason for deletion, per WP:DEL#REASON? Stop the personal attacks and go re-read the article instead, it has improved quite a bit in last few days. --Sander Säde 07:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks are unfounded comments based on the editor rather than the edits. I'm saying that based on the edits of some users, they're obviously biased. The article covers the idea of "communist genocide" as a uniform doctrine - the coverage looks at individual genocides committed by communists. If that's what we're going to write the article on, fine, but it turns it into an unneeded content fork summarising multiple crimes linked only by the political doctrine of the organisation running it. Ironholds (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not synth, noted British political philosopher John N. Gray discusses the concept of "Communist genocide" here. --Martintg (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, those refer to the individual genocides, not an overarching concept of "communist genocide." The overarching concept simply does not exist, and putting all the different genocides in one article under the name "communist genocide" is against WP:SYNTH. Did you read the other comments here before posting yours? Offliner (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These individual genocides are labeled as "communist genocide", so obviously the overarching concept exists. Also, one of the sources say: The notion of genocide has originally been confined to the physical annihilation, or intention to do so, of members of whole nations. If it were to have remained confined within those boundaries, the Communist genocide would, perhaps, be arguably applicable to massive deportations and annihilation of a large number of Ukrainians, Balts and other Soviet nationals, but if would leave out the massive extermination of own-nationals. The Cambodian Khmer Rouge, among others, could never be indicted for 'genocide,' which is absurd. To me this use seems pretty overarching. -- Vision Thing -- 09:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These individual genocides are labeled as "communist genocide", so obviously the overarching concept exists. - this sentence looks like a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. Are you sure you have understood the guideline? And no, the quote you mentioned is not enough for having a whole article about the alleged concept in WP. Once again, the whole book mentions the term "communist genocide" only once. You need to point out a source which contains an extensive discussion of the general concept of "communist genocide," not just one passing mention in a whole book. Offliner (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is there a particular reason why every keep gets immediately replied/commented - the type of said comment often being a borderline personal attack? Why do I get a feeling that an agenda is being pushed with this deletion? --Sander Säde 09:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, in effect you are saying that incivility is OK in Wikipedia discussions, as longer as one feels that opponent's arguments are "at best -- misguided"? --Sander Säde 14:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is what Communists did widely considered genocide? Just because a few crazy people do doesn't mean this article is legitimate. Triplestop x3 12:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marting, thank you for being the first person to provide any evidence that anyone ever discussed "communist genocide" as a theory. By the way, the quote given is not from Ellen Frankel Paul, she was merely the editor. The quote is from an article by John N. Gray called "Totalitarianism, Reform and Civil Society" that originally appeared as a chapter in his book Post liberalism: Studies in Political Thought (1993). The problem with using this source is that it did not enter mainstream academic discussion and was largely ignored outside the National Review and libertarian circles. Even then most of the discussion focused on his views of liberalism. If you believe that this book has been ignored by Wikipedia, may I suggest that you create an article for it that explains all the various theories that it advances. However a fringe theory from a non-notable book is not sufficient to create its own article. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the problem with this source (apparent from talking about "socialist genocide" not communist) is that it amounts to half a page and doesn't have any conceptual discussion. It just chucks in the phrase "socialist genocide" for famines under communism. Rd232 talk 21:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in John N. Gray's bio that suggests that this British political philosopher and former Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics is a fringe theorist. He appears to have published extensively and in fact there is a book written about him: The Political Theory of John Gray, which states "He is much cited and discussed within political and social theory, but he also has a much wider audience, being one of those quite rare creatures in British academic life, a public intellectual, writing regularly for the quality press and appearing on both radio and TV". So I don't see where you get the idea his views are "largely ignored outside the National Review and libertarian circles". What ever your personal view is of John Gray, it cannot now be said that the concept of "Communist genocide" is WP:SYNTH --Martintg (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link you give says "John Gray is one of today’s most...controversial political thinkers." (my emphasis) Controversial means that his ideas are not mainstream and the fact that his theory on communism has received no academic mention makes it fringe. However, I accept that you may wish to write an article about his views. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This your personal view point, I accept that. But the evidence doesn't sustain your claim, his work is extensively cited --Martintg (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. I'm not sure whether to call it synthesis or just regurgitation of standard American right-wing rhetoric: just because American conservatives like to string the words together when they talk -- and that Google will turn those examples up -- doesn't that there's any such objective concept. Give Conservapedia a ring, I'm sure they'll take it. --Calton | Talk 13:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - That's ridiculous. The article I saw doesn't read like propoganda. It's a sourced article on a topic on which entire books have been written. I've got no problem with the tags, but there's nothing so broken about the article that requires deletion. I'm frankly dismayed at how many comments appear to be of this variety, and willfully ignoring the fact that the article is the subject of multiple books, many of which are cited here. And, at least one of those books itself is notable enough to have its own page The Black Book of Communism. Shadowjams (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Keep - concept is notable, concept is used by scholarly sources, article is sourced.radek (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assertion without evidence - WP:NOTVOTE. The sources in the article and in this discussion don't hold water in terms of discussing a concept. Two words strung together do not automatically constitute a concept. Rd232 talk 21:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The occurrence of these mass killings is a fact. Make whatever edits are necessary to maintain NPOV, but the article itself should be kept. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is not verification of mass killings, nor of WP:NPOV. It is WP:OR on the alleged concept of "communist genocide" for which there is not any sourcing worthy of the name. Also WP:NOTVOTE - pay attention to the issues. Rd232 talk 21:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • NPOV was an issue from the beginning, but if that part of the discussion is resolved, great. As I see it, the only major item of contention remaining is the distinction between keeping the term "Communist genocide" and renaming the article to something like "Genocide by Communists" or "Mass killings by Communists". I'm sympathetic to the argument that using "Communist genocide" is inappropriate because of the implication that it is a common phrase used to define a certain type of genocide particular to communists. But to argue that the phrase is wrong is to argue that it should be replaced, not that the article itself should be deleted. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it's still wrong to associate it with communism as a whole. Even if it were fact. Triplestop x3 03:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The creator of this article is a banned crosswiki vandal who is now blocked indef. Triplestop x3 20:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per NickD - extreme WP:SYNTH violation, disguised by lots of sources relevant to a different article (eg List of genocides committed by communist governments). Genocide may have been committed by Communists (certainly there are sources that argue that, though the meaning of "communism" is endlessly debatable) but there is no source for the concept of "Communist genocide". Also created by banned user. Rd232 talk 20:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say it is synth, noted British political philosopher John N. Gray duscusses the concept of "Communist genocide" here, linking the genocides committed by communist governments and attributing the phenomenon to Communist policy. --Martintg (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, its just two words used together, as in genocide done by socialists, not socialist genocide as a specific term. And one person said those 2 words, doesn't make it notable. Triplestop x3 21:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Words strung together do not constitute a "concept". And his discussion amounts to a couple of untheorised references on a single page, as far as I can see. Rd232 talk 21:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However these "words strung together" have been published, hence WP:SYNTH no longer applies. --Martintg (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The words are strung together without sufficient discussion to justify calling it a concept in the published sources. So having an article on it is absolutely WP:SYNTH. Rd232 talk 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never the less, the notion of "Communist genocide" being a specific feature of Communist policy common across many Communist regimes has be published, you could maybe argue WP:UNDUE, but it is definitely not WP:SYNTH. --Martintg (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant POV/attack article. What is so special about communist genocide as opposed to genocide? When it comes to genocide, it doesn't matter who is committing it, what their particular system of government, religion, or world view is. All that matters is that they've killed masses of people. Genocide is genocide. Specifying a system of government is just stupid, petty and POV pushing. Keeping this will only result in every group with a bone to pick will come here and write POV attack articles about "communist/fascist/Turkish/Islamic/Christian genocide". Then those groups will come and scream prejudice and they'll be right. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Genocides have particular characteristics, Nazi genocide was derived from an explicit and pronounced contempt for Jewish people, while Communist genocide was derived from an explicit and pronounced contempt for any small, "backward" and reactionary peoples. --Martintg (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR right there. Rd232 talk 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The line "Communist genocide was derived from an explicit and pronounced contempt for any small, "backward" and reactionary peoples" is from a published source, the comparison to Nazi genocide is not made in the article, but merely a response to User:Multixfer. --Martintg (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't deserve its own article. Anyone who commits genocide is targeting someone. That's the general idea: a specific act of mass-murder targeted at a specific group. So should we have 50,000 short POV fork articles and stubs about every instance of genocide committed by one group against another for whatever their justification was at the time? Or do we just have one Genocide article that covers genocide? (the holocaust, which redirects from Nazi genocide linked above, is a common historical title that transcends anything associated with general genocide). <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are exactly arguing for here, when you state "should we have 50,000 short POV fork articles and stubs about every instance of genocide committed", this article does the opposite and aggregates a number of genocides into one article, an aggregation that is supported in the literature because of its particular features related to Communist ideology that makes it stand apart from regular genocide. --Martintg (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been mentioned several times above. However the article has since been significantly expanded by several other editors of good standing. --Martintg (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually pointing out to another editor that they are stating something that is repetitive? Now that's irony for you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparison: "Zionist genocide" gets even more Google hits than "Communist genocide": [31] [32] And to note the depth of scholarly coverage, GoogleBooks furnishes over 50 hits: [33]
PasswordUsername (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, if you want to start an article on "Zionist Genocide" go ahead - and good luck with that, since I bet that a good chunk of those hits are going to be non-RS neo-Nazi sites and the like. But even if, the fact that one concept gets more hits than another concept which gets 1000+ hits is a reason for starting another article, not deleting this one. Same as with the Genocide of Native Americans (I'm serious about the need for that one - if you want to cooperate on it I'd be glad to help).radek (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not sure if I should start it. But there's definitely a ring to classifying all genocides by ideology, especially with the Books Google feature. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what? "Communist mass killing" [34] also gets tons of hits. This is a naming issue which is a content issue that should properly be discussed on the article talk page rather than here. --Martintg (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only 10,600, Martin...? "Zionist mass murder" gets 91,200. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Zionist mass murder" only gives me 1,060 hits. --Martintg (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try this: [35]. It's showing up as 102,000 for me now. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To PasswordUsername, doing books.google.com, far more reliable for scholarly sources, shows 41 for "Zionist genocide" and 371 for "Communist genocide". Let's not include every web site (of questionable scholarly basis) screaming genocide regarding a topic of this gravity. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  00:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41? I get 50 right now: it was 51 an hour ago. [36] Funny searching mechanism. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Google searches throw up some strange results, and only covers stuff that is online in any case. I think we are straying off topic here, what we name a topic is a content issue, to be discussed else where, we don't go deleting an article because we don't like the name. --Martintg (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point on searches was that "Communist genocide" (words together, as a single term) appears far more frequently in a search of books (including appearing in numerous titles) than "Zionist genocide." Frankly, I'm flabbergasted at the contentions here that "Communist genicode" is not a well-used scholarly term and concept for, well, communist-perpetrated genovide. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  01:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been explained numerous times in the comments above that "communist genocide" occurs in passing reference to some communist regime's act of mass-scale destruction - most prominently as naming the Cambodian Genocide, which is in such instances referred to by some as "the Communist genocide in Cambodia." There is no basis for an overarching concept of "communist genocide" as such - and no scholarly work on it has been produced. (A passing reference as part of a controversial discussion of political liberalism by John N. Gray is not a substitute for significant scholarly work.) The fact that GoogleBooks yields results for the juxtaposition advanced here – the very notion of "communist genocide" – is exactly what I am referring to in my comparison. Comparable locutions on GoogleBooks, such as "Zionist genocide" and "imperialist genocide", occur also – and they will soon exist on Wiki too, if all it comes down to is empty arguments. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming "A passing reference as part of a controversial discussion of political liberalism by John N. Gray is not a substitute for significant scholarly work" mis-interprets of the previous discussion, please provide a published source that contends John Gray's chapter "Totalitarianism, Reform and Civil Society" published in the book "Totalitarianism at the crossroads" is in any way "controversial". There is nothing in John N. Gray bio that suggests that he is a fringe theorist or controversial, yet we have Wikipedians here who have asserted that without providing any evidence what so ever. It is the quality of sources, not quantity, that determines reliability, and by all accounts John Gray is a scholar of the highest order. --Martintg (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming anything. Evidently you missed the above discussion. His publisher advertises him as one of today's most controversial theorists in political thought. If you would like to write about Gray's chapter in a book – or even regarding his scholarly work on liberalism (Post-Liberalism), from which the chapter in question comes – in its own article, nothing could possibly stand in your way, so long as either one of these resources has such adequate notability that it belongs on Wikipedia – just as it can as easily be written about some instance of a statute against denying a particular "communist genocide" in a particular country. But that is not tantamount to creating POV fork based on clamping everything in one piece or promoting certain political views. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are engaging in WP:SYNTH, taking the comments from a publisher about an unrelated book written by somebody else and applying it to John Gray's particular chapter "Totalitarianism, Reform and Civil Society" in "Totalitarianism at the crossroads". You really need to find a published scholarly review on John Gray's specific views about "Communist genocide" before you can claim it is "controversial", without it no controversy exists. As for this claim of "POV fork", what is the name of the article that this is supposedly a fork of? --Martintg (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the publisher has clearly labeled the author "controversial." I have already explained the trouble with the article time and time again. I think I've had enough. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Martintg has it exactly right. All of the WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues are article issues. I'll admit that they can justify deletion if they overwhelm an article, but that's simply not the case here. If this is a question of naming then take it to the talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The answer is to improve the article citing sources which discsuss "communist genocide". What is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR here are the allegations being made here why the topic is not worthy for an article and why the title is inappropriate for the topic. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  01:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet one more random split

edit
You have a very good point. We don't make pages about things that are inherently POV. However, you are starting to run afoul of WP:POINT. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you 100% Triplestop x3 02:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is just a naming issue which should be addressed as a content issue on the talk page, some names are used more often than others in various contexts, but they all point to the same underlying topic, the mass killing of people by totalitarian communist regimes around the world. What is "inherently POV" about this topic? What is the alternate POV this article is suppose to fork, that communist regimes didn't kill anyone? Has anyone provided any sources that articulate the claim that no one was killed? "Communist genocide" is a specific term discussed in books, memorial days proclaimed for and courts prosecuting alleged perpetrators because of it. It is a notable and worthy topic no matter how you want to name it. --Martintg (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point. This is not a naming issue. This is a trolling issue. (Igny (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Probably more likely a case of WP:IDONTLIKEITitis. We have people here asserting it is "inherently POV", but seem unable to articulate what the actual POV issue is. --Martintg (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The POV arises from the ignorance of capitalist-indoctrinated people thinking that communism is something totally evil, causing people to associate it with Holocaust, Apocalypse, Genocide, etc. On the other side are people brainwashed into thinking that communism is so great. We cannot honor these extreme points of views. See also: The Crucible Triplestop x3 03:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anywhere in the article that makes the judgment that Communism is "something totally evil", it is for the reader to judge. Is it a fact that these regimes engaged in mass killing, many eminent scholars contend in published sources that these mass killings were genocidal and a common feature of totalitarian communist policy in multiple regimes, and discuss it in terms of "communist genocide". Would you be comfortable if the article was renamed to Communist mass killings, or would you also contend that was POV too, disputing even that fact? --Martintg (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's not widely considered genocide. Sure, individual regimes have committed mass murders however it is incorrect to associate it with Communism. "the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie" is not genocide, and most of the deaths caused by communist regimes were not the rich. Triplestop x3 03:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this comes across as personal opinion, you need to find published sources that make these claims and add it to the article per WP:YESPOV. Plenty of published sources associate mass killings with Communism have been provided, you need to find reliable sources that assert there is no connection between mass killing and totalitarian Communism. --Martintg (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, as the one attempting to associate the system of Communism with mass killings, the onus is on you to prove that Communism == Mass killing. As defined in the Wikipedia page, Communism (from Latin: communis = "common") is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general. Does it say anything about mass killings? Because this is the POV the page is putting across Triplestop x3 04:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Easy, see the book Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, chapter 4. --Martintg (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you found one crazy person who wrote their fringe theory in a book. And? Triplestop x3 14:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(od) "attempting to associate"? Excuse me, no one is saying "communism = mass killing", what is being said is that communism (multiple countries and regimes) used mass killing as an organized instrument of repression, as described in numerous upon numerous scholarly sources. What communism says it stands for is completely immaterial in this regard. I'm sorry, Triplestop, but it's you that has the POV that we can only talk about what communism says it is (prosperity et al.) and not what communist regimes have done (mass murder). VЄСRUМВА  ☎  04:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That the phrase "communist genocide" is sometimes used does not make "communist genocide" a concept. None of the sources demonstrate a conceptual discussion of the term. They use it as a label for some very bad events alleged to be genocide (not that clearcut in most cases) which people claiming to be communists were largely responsible for. "Communist genocide" qua concept implies a causal connection between genocide and Communism as ideology or system of government, which has not been shown. You might as well start the article male genocide because the perpetrators of most genocides have been men. Rd232 talk 07:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about these sources:
"The Communist Genocide in Romania." [37]
"... Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea, where the phenomena of Communist genocide and autogenocide reached their ultimate expression." [38]
"... the idea of a "Red Holocaust" and a "Communist Genocide" have become a part of today's vocabulary." [39]
"Soviet and communist genocide and mass state killings, sometimes termed politicide, occurred..." [40]
I suspect the term is more common in Eastern Europe than it is here (and there were a number of grammatical mistakes in the article which suggest writing by editors for whom English is not their first language) but the term does exist for the concept. Whether or not we should use it for this article is another matter on which I am fairly ambivalent. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the effort, but (2) is too short and cryptic (sounds potentially interesting though); (3) and obviously (1) all references are to historiography in Romania, where post-1990 anti-communism apparently is keen to equate nazism and communism, but again "communist genocide" is not a theorised concept, it's genocide by communists; (4) the expression "soviet and communist" clearly indicates the shorthand use of "communist" to denote some communist states; this is clearly not a source for the concept of "communist genocide". Rd232 talk 19:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If all this boils down to the use of "Communist genocide" as a proper noun rather than as an adjective and a noun, it can be easily resolved through edits. Outright deletion strikes me as an over-reaction. Regardless, I think Wikipedia is improved by having an article which describes the various actions of communist governments which accumulated in a combined death toll, outside of war, of 100 million people in less than a century. Would you be satisfied if we changed the article to something like "Communist mass killings"? AmateurEditor (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying that? Well this is exactly what this page is saying. And I'm speaking from a neutral point of view of someone who came across this ridiculous page first when cleaning out spam articles. And that is exactly what a reader would think. Since we are accusing each other of having POV, your tone clearly sugguests that your are speaking from the point of view of one who opposes communism. Look at your userpage. Triplestop x3 14:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For all the POV issues (which are usually a talk page issues, not a delete issues) there's zero bias pushing on communism. The nominator said there'd be "bias" very early in this discussion, but even now I don't see it.
It's not like Senator Mcarthy's been running loose on AfD. If this was something about a current political debate I'd expect that kind of premonition, but forgive me if I'm naive to say that I would have never thought this was a bias issue. Who exactly is displaying bias, and what exactly is this bias? Nothing in this debate (other than cries of "POV") has suggested otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Communist countries have engaged in systematic mass destruction, which has been proven beyond reasonable doubt in academic literature. The article can be developed to better comply with the Wikipedia core policies. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - why are people posting their views - what are essentially "comments" like this one - on top of the page (presumably to make sure that it's the first thing everyone sees) instead of properly doing it by posting a comment like this one. Add to that there's completely no consensus in presenting these views as a summary ("to summarize") and the summary itself is just one user's POV and this is really screwing up the page. Please follow standard procedures and move your comments down to the bottom and label them as "comment". Thanks.radek (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not the nominator's rationale - that's a separate thing. Nor is it the nominator's prerogative to put up a section called "To summarize" at the top of the page which pretends to summarize the ongoing discussion in a very biased and pov-ed way in order to try and influence the closing admins into taking an action that is very much against the opinion of many editors here. Nor is it ok to argue that standard Wikipedia policy should be thrown out the window, just because the vote is not going according to one's wishes.radek (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved the off-topic comments to the talk page. It might have been better to leave it there, in hindsight - I suspect the closing admin would have been as shocked as I was at such blatant attempt to change the outcome of AfD discussion, attack on editors with opposing viewpoints and the sheer nastiness some users are displaying there. --Sander Säde 14:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good. Offliner restored the off-topic nastiness situated in the wrong place. --Sander Säde 14:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is relevant info the admin needs to know when closing this. And we can all assume the admin is competent enough not to be "influenced" Triplestop x3 14:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you think that the closing admin is an idiot incapable of going through arguments and making a decision himself or herself? Or just seeing that the article is vastly improved, with loads of valid sources and as such probably not deleted. Is that the reason why there are small nasty hints everywhere - "look at your userpage", "note at closing admin" etc etc. Shameful. --Sander Säde 14:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's still relevant. And you are being just as "shameful" by moving the comments to attempt to influence it the other way. Ironholds says it nicely. [41] Triplestop x3 15:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My move of discussion would have allowed admin to make up his mind based on arguments, not "To summarize" by someone obviously interested in a certain outcome. --Sander Säde 15:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly doubtful that its a coincidence that you also voted keep. Triplestop x3 15:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have not been canvassing, haven't lowered myself to personal attacks, haven't tried to force the closing admin to see my way, haven't commented on everybody with opposing views, I get "its a coincidence" I voted keep...
Firstly, this isn't a popularity contest. AfD's are not elections, they are resolved with arguments from both sides. Secondly, why don't you actually go over to page and read the article. It is now solidly sourced, plenty of RS's, including sources directly dealing with the topic. Don't judge a book by its cover - the article was a complete mess at start (I would have supported deletion of this version myself), now it is starting to get in a better shape than most articles in Wikipedia are.
--Sander Säde 15:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it. It still ridiculously reeks of POV and I there isn't any way to fix it. And you have indeed engaged in personal attacks, saying Their main issue is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You can always tell when someone accuses of WP:SYNTH, WP:POV and WP:OR but is unable to point out what exactly is wrong, forcing them to use phrases such as "the whole thing was nothing but trolling". when clearly the opposite is true. Triplestop x3 16:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another pointless splitting

edit
  • Delete. "Communist" and "genocide" is not a meaningful intersection of topics. An analogous (and much less controversial) hypothetical article would be Communist basketball teams ... Communist countries have basketball players, but there's no unifying characteristic among them that would lead to people talking about "Communist basketball". The situation is similar here once you look past the politics clouding people's perceptions. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 16:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some seem to hold the view that there is no causal link between communist ideology and mass killings. The view seems to be that the mass killings in the former USSR, the Democratic Kampuchea, in the People's Republic of China and Ethiopia were all independent events where the ideology of government was just co-incidental, not a root cause. The problem is that no evidence is presented from published sources that supports the case that this view of no causal link is held by any significant author, we are just left with the unqualified opinion of some Wikipedians that this is the case. When presented with books that make that causal link, like Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, the author who has published extensively in academia is immediately dismissed as a crazy fringe theorist by the AfD nominator. --Martintg (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As genocides in history show there is no direct link between the genocides and communism. Just a handful genocides were perpetrated by the communist regimes, and quite a few (most notably genocides of the indians) happened before the theory of communism even appeared. You can see there are much better links between the genocides and imperialism, colonialism, religion, and socialism. This seems to indicate that the evil (manifested in genocide, racism, slavery, etc) just seems to be part of the human nature. There appears to be a lot of confusion between the theory of communism which is ultimately idealized in communist utopia and different perverted interpretations/realisations of various aspects of the theory in practice. Are perversions of the theory result of the theory? This is open to interpretations, and such interpretations may even easily link democracy to genocides. (Igny (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
So have you published your theory of no causal link between totalitarian communism and mass killing in some journal? One eminent scholar (fringe theorist according to our AfD nominator) has stated "it must be observed that the political creation of an artificial terror-famine with genocidal results is not a phenomenon restricted to the historical context of Russia and the Ukraine in the Thirties, but is a feature of Communist policy to this day, as evidenced in the sixties in Tibet and now in Ethiopia. The socialist genocide of small, "primitive" peoples, such as the Kalmucks and many others, has been a recurrent element in polices at several stages in the development of Soviet and Chinese totalitarianism. Once again, communist policy in this respect faithfully reproduces classical Marxism, which had an explicit and pronounced contempt for small, backward and reactionary peoples - no less than for the peasantry as a class and a form of social life". --Martintg (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You really have to show that Valentino's theory has gained acceptance by the academic community and is now generally recognized. If you want to draw attention to his work, perhaps you could create articles about him and his book. As far as I can tell his theory has received no recognition either from the academic community or from newspaper reviews. Incidentally far more writers have written about perceived American genocide in the Indian Wars, the Civil War, Hawaii, the Philippines, Japan, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan (and countless other places), yet there is no article about that. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about you provide evidence for your assertion "As far as I can tell his theory has received no recognition either from the academic community" by providing a published paper that refutes the causal link between the communism and mass killing. --Martintg (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is so easy to find anti-communist propaganda in the Western publications. What I said earlier was not my theory that was common sense. If you want to find source which support the common sense, be my guest. In fact I dare you to go and try to google for counter-arguments to this POV-filled article. Believe me if you try you will find plenty of the counterarguments, but you would probably call them communist propaganda. While we are on this topic, I could challenge you to find a single diff of your edit which is pro-Russian or just balancing anti-Russian/ anti-communist POV, but nevermind. But if you go to original theory of communism you would fail to find any single phrase which condones/ causes/ provokes genocides. Mind that revolutions are not genocides. All the interpretations in the Western media are just that, interpretations. (Igny (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Seems all you can offer is "common sense", i.e. OR, and a personal attack. How about trying to contribute to the debate by supplying a peer-reviewed paper that claims that ideology was not a factor in mass killings in the various Communist regimes. --Martintg (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to prove you inability to find the counterarguments in plain view, and demonstrate that some claims there are taken out of context. Here is a quote from one of the sources from the very article.
"Only a fool could hold Marx responsible for Gulag,, but there is, alas, a ready supply of fools... Should philosophers be blamed for any and every subsequent mutilation of their ideas?"
(Igny (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
So? I'm certainly not holding Marx personally responsible for genocide. Then again, "C"ommunism has very little to do with Marxist "c"ommunism. Red herring. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about you because honestly I do not care about your point of view. I'd like however to point out that the lead of this article blames Marx' manifesto for genocides not less. (Igny (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Communist Genocide is no more a valid topic than Capitalism Genocide, Christian Genocide, Islam Genocide, Jewish Genocide, African Genocide etc.. LokiiT (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look for "Islamic genocide" in scholarly sources. Purely a synthesis of your personal opinion. Nothing to do with scholarly sources. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Martintg - you have the issue the wrong way around. There is no peer-reviewed paper that claims that ideology was not a factor in mass killings in the various Communist regimes because there is no peer-reviewed paper that that claims it was. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The argument "Communist" and "genocide" is not a meaningful intersection of topics" is as meaningless as the argument "Islam" and "terrorism" is not a meaningful intersection of topics", yet we have the article Islamic terrorism precisely because it is a meaningful intersection. --Martintg (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know, there is nothing inherently "evil" or inhuman about the basic communist ideology. It holds that all people are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labour and advocates economic equality and communal ownership of all property, the benefits of which must shared by all according to the needs of each. What you refer to is called Stalinism or Maoism or Communist state or general totalitarianism. You can't just lump all these concepts together and label the entire theory as genocidal, especially considering that Stalin's USSR, Pol Pot's Kampuchea and Mao's China were by no means representative of all communist philosophies and governmental systems. — Rankiri (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You argument appears to be equivalent to claiming that since there is nothing inherently "evil" or inhuman in the Koran, the article Islamic terrorism should be deleted. It the issue is one of labeling the entire theory as genocidal, why would you object to renaming to Totalitarian Communist genocide? --Martintg (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you even read the Quran? Fighting may be imposed on you, even though you dislike it. But you may dislike something which is good for you, and you may like something which is bad for you. GOD knows while you do not know[43], and so on. — Rankiri (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Synthesis at its finest. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, as you say it's all about sources and there are hundreds that discuss "communist genocide." VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In passing as in "genocides by communist regimes". No source yet blames communists for genocides in general, nor actually define the phrase "communist genocide" and does not discuss how the genocide by the communists differs from other genocides. Yet somehow the lead of this article traces the communist genocides to Marx' theory of the communism by synthesis of words taken out of context from different sources. (Igny (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep but move to a neutral title, such as "Genocide in Communist regimes" or some such. "Communist genocide" implies that genocide is an inherent part of Communism, rather than merely being a practice of some (but not all) Communist regimes. --FOo (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest genocide in totalitarian regimes with a subsection on the genocides by the communist totalitarian regimes.(Igny (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
genocide in totalitarian regimes? What exactly would be the reason to duplicate the article about Nazi genocide, better known as Holocaust in another article? There is the main article Genocide which has content forks on Nazi genocide, Armenian genocide etc., and now on Communist genocide. To say that "Communist genocide" somehow implies like "all communists are genocidal", sorry but it can't be taken seriously. However renaming the article is an option as long as a new name as the current one is based on published sources pr.WP:NAME, not on "own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions".--Termer (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, "What exactly would be the reason to duplicate the article about Nazi genocide, better known as Holocaust in another article?" sure sounds funny from a guy who insists on keeping another POV fork in place right here. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
POV fork of what? POV fork is something that is made parallel to another article. Is there anywhere on Wikipedia an article on mass killings of estimated 60-100 million people committed by Communist regimes? In case there is, please let me know.--Termer (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Black Book of Communism—which, by the way, has a lengthy criticism section that includes statements like famines were caused by the "stupidity or incompetence of the regime," and that the deaths resulting from the famines, as well as other deaths that "resulted directly or indirectly from government policy," should not be counted as if they were equivalent to intentional murders and executions..— Rankiri (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fubar's suggestion is excellent. Really excellent. It cuts through a lot of the arguments on here. Genocide in communist regimes avoids some of the worries about "communist genocide" being a discrete concept, and focuses on the sources that the Keep editors have added here, without the concerns by many of the Delete editors about lending credence to a new theory of political history that would arise as a gramatical coincidence. Shadowjams (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Genocide by communist regimes would be more accurate perhaps. Otherwise, support rename--Termer (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you also support Genocide by capitalist regimes? Because we can have it by cleverly exploiting references like this: [44]. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think a rename would word - what would an article, "Genocide in communist regimes" contain, aside from a list of links to articles about specific such genocides? As the sources produced thus far only discuss connections between these events briefly or in passing, anything other than a mere list of links to otherwise unrelated articles would be either very short, or an OR synthesis. The problem with "Communist genocide" is that it implies that there is a notable academic theory of communist genocide; if "Genocide in communist countries" were to have any content, it would have to make the same claim, and this is precisely the claim that is disputed.VoluntarySlave (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider Totalitarian Communist mass killing? Surely nobody here disputes that mass killing was a defining feature of Totalitarian Communist regimes, even if some of us claim the mass killing wasn't genocide. --Martintg (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a well known concept,lot of references Shyamsunder (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claim without evidence made by a user who's just stalked eight of my edits. Dude, WP:NOTVOTE. PasswordUsername (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as SYNTH. There are obviously people (on-wiki as well as off-wiki) who argue that there is such a concept as 'communist genocide' (i.e. that there is a historic linkage between events, roughly along the arguments of BB). To be brief, I say that analysis is politically motivated, and the existence of the article is becomes the pushing of one POV in a wider historical debate. There are plenty of ghits for 'Zionist Genocide' also (including 51 google book hits), but it would be a bad article title. Wiki is an encyclopedia, we dont need argumentative pieces like 'Why the Black Book of Communism is right'. The debate on the Black Book is amply covered in that particular article. --Soman (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can you claim it is SYNTH, then acknowledge "that there is a historic linkage between events, roughly along the arguments of the Black Book". If the author of the Black Book, Stéphane Courtois, writes about this linkage in his book, as Benjamin Valentino, John Gray, Eric Weitz, Ronit Lenṭin and Rebecca Knuth also do in their respective books, then it is no longer SYNTH. No body has provided authors that have contended that there is no linkage, so how can you speak of a "wider historical debate"? --Martintg (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't acknowledge that. I say that there are people that argue in a similar fashion. Don't misquote me. Copypasting a summary of a highly politicized document like the Black Book, and claiming that it is an encyclopediatic article is not npov. May I remind other editors of the following passage in the lead of the article at present:
"Totalitarian communist regimes took the violent "class struggle" described by Marx and Engels in their Communist Manifesto to its most virulent incarnation, that of genocide, giving "the world the wars and genocides of Lenin, Stalin and Mao."[8] According to the Communist Manifesto, the existence of traditional ruling classes (including leaders, property owners, educated professionals, etc.) became "no longer compatible with society", therefore "the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie" proposed by it, became a way of laying the so called "foundation for the sway of the proletariat", ostensibly the ideological basis for legally sanctioned genocide of the future.[9][10] "Never have so few pages done so much damage", writes Benjamin Wiker.[11]" That is about as SYNTHish as you can get, in my view. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesis is advancing a new position, how is what is in the lead new from what has already been published by Peter A. Zuckerman, Benjamin Valentino and Benjamin Wiker, who are essentially saying the same thing? In fact, the Black Book appears to be only cited within the body in regard to numbers of deaths, So I don't quite understand what you mean when you say "Copypasting a summary of a highly politicized document like the Black Book". --Martintg (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to that particular passage, I edited the first part of that last night to more accurately reflect the source cited. I also inserted "ostensibly" in the second part to insure that it is the regime executing genocide that is taking "class struggle" as justifying genocide, and that it is not something Marx/Engels personally advocated (although it was clear it would be a violent class struggle, and so undeniably the seed, that is, those "words" being alluded to)--mass execution was a subsequent interpretation. How is what is being stated, fairly representing the sources, indeed quoting them in part, qualify as "SYNTH"? As responded above, absolutely nothing new is being presented.
   If totalitarian rule including amassing the state as your personal instrument were your goal, you could not find a better excuse than the elimination of the bourgeousie to rape your population of all their posessions and destroy those that had possessions (that is, people who had showed initiative, were professionals, were successful,....)—and eliminating entire classes of people would be genocide, no? VЄСRUМВА  ♪  15:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about the renaming debate. I think a big part of the problem is that the compromise legal definition for the term genocide was specifically required by the Soviet Union and others to exclude the mass killing of political and social groups back in 1948.[1] As a result, consensus for the terminology varies from incident to incident. As I searched for sources on the topic, I came across a variety of terms, from communist genocide, to socialist genocide, class genocide, politicide, and democide, among others. While many sources clearly still think the term is appropriate - and I would agree with them - there is legitimate contention. By using the term "Mass killings" in the title of the article and perhaps including a section explaining the labeling issues, I think we can reach a general consensus. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate/Listify (Keep) - A very prominent term in the context of Eastern Europe and used in a number of academic works. Since it can be used for Ceaucescu, Stalin, and Pol Pot, ths page should be sourced for mentions of Communist Genocide and then the user can decide which genocide they want to learn about. Sorry if this sounds amazingly callous, but I;m trying to build consensus here.Pectoretalk 16:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not merge/redirect to already existing list in genocides in history? (Igny (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You might also want to check out Historical_revisionism_(negationism)#Politically_motivated_historical_revisionism Smallbones (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Holodomor is still under debate. The Great Leap Forward and Gulag, for example, do not even mention the word genocide at all. Great famines in communist countries could be just attributed to tragic mistakes in management rather than malicious intent, yet this article fails to mention that. Is the current famine in Zimbabwe a genocide? (Igny (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
See Holodomor denial and Red terror - Red terror was official government policy and a major tenant of Marxism-Lenninism/ From Red terror:

Communist leader Grigory Zinoviev seemed to be advocating genocide when he declared in mid-September of 1918:

"To overcome of our enemies we must have our own socialist militarism. We must carry along with us 90 million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia's population. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated."[2]
To answer your question: yes, the current famine in Zimbabwe is considered genocide, according to the Sunday Times [45]. PasswordUsername (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this is not a "mistake in management" Smallbones (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you would say really really does not matter. I'd say this article is highly POVed, as in not neutral at all, clearly politicized, fails to disclose any counterarguments, and in some instances advocates a specific POV by synthesis of different sources. Besides, taking quotes out of context does not help your position. (Igny (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The Black Book of Communism is a somewhat controversial work about deaths under communist regimes in various places – but it is not a book about "communist genocide" as such – and your presentation of it as an example of one is a classic case of WP:SYNTH itself. That there are no academic works devoted to the concept of "communist genocide" – as opposed to a number of particular instances of mass killings in communist regimes that are considered genocides by many researchers – is exactly what many of the arguments above have revolved around, with no apparent success for the "keep-this-article" side. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that other non-communist genocides, such as Holocaust, lack the ideological justification? (Igny (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I don't think he was saying that. I think he was saying that this does have an ideological compnent. Why would that imply that others do not? Obviously, we have an article for that Jewish Holocaust. Besides, it's not our job to delve into Stalin's mind. That's what the reliable sources do. Look to those. Shadowjams (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again my point is that the article lacks overview of the sources which counter many of the arguments presented in a very biased way there. For example, a picture from Holodomor is used as the main picture, lots of talk about the holodomor denial, lots of POVs talking about the holodomor, as the worst genocide ever, is presented... And yet nowhere in the article the Holodomor genocide question is mentioned (see plenty of reliable sources countering the genocide arguments there). All the links between the genocide and the communist ideology are synthesis of the quotes out of context... Many POVs are controversial and yet stated as fact in the article rather than attributed to a specific person advocating the view... Is this neutral coverage of the sources in your opinion?(Igny (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Also class struggle even if violent is not equal to genocide, violent overthrow of monarchies or revolutions are not genocide. Even civil wars in most cases are not genocide. Plenty of famines/epidemics in history of humankind are not genocide. I am surprised that Chernobyl was not mentioned here as genocide of Belorussia by the communists, even though technological catastrophes are not genocide either. And the very lead of this article (as well as most of the editors who voted "keep" here) advocates the view that Marxism ideology is somehow the primary cause of the genocides, even though there are plenty of sources claiming the link is merely coincidental at best. (Igny (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
"even though there are plenty of sources claiming the link is merely coincidental at best", care to post these sources that claim that Communist ideology was not a factor in mass killing in these regimes? --Martintg (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did provide an example on the talk page of the article and I just mentioned the Holodomor genocide question. But naturally you ignored all that, so I do not know why I bothered to answer your question, which by the way you could easily answer yourself by googling. (Igny (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment: Setting aside the question of whether the mass-killings discussed in the article were in fact genocides, it is easy to see the argument for labelling many or all of them communist. “Communism” is a reasonably well defined term, referring to a collectivist, egalitarian economic order, and these mass killings were effected as an avowed part of an avowed attempt to bring about or to maintain such an order. Meanwhile, a killing isn't “capitalist” simply by virtue of not having been effected for communistic reasons. If one were to discuss “capitalist” mass-killings, the first problem would be that the word “capitalism” has never been particularly well defined, and in the 20th Century its definition became even more problematic as various parties attempted to lump-together very distinct systems in order to disparage or to promote some of these by specious association. Wikipedia's own article somewhat admits the fuzziness, and then tries to soldier-on with a fudge. But nothing in its messy definition, nothing in the definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and nothing in either of the two definitions that have been used in the history of the American Heritage dictionaries has a meaningful fit to the Nazi extermination of Jews, the various massacres of aboriginal populations, &c. These exterminations were effected based upon ethnic and religious claims, and when the Nazis demonized their victims it was often as rapacious “capitalists”. —SlamDiego←T 03:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, not withstanding the question whether or not the mass killing was genocide, the fact that mass killing was inspired by Communist ideology is not in question. It is interesting to note that the Dictionary of Genocide has an entry for "Communism", characterizing it as an intolerant, repressive and genocidal political force in the modern world. In fact in the same book states that mass killings along the lines of genocide are often motivated doctrinally. Genocide scholar Helen Fein contends such genocides are justified by an articulated social goal that enjoins the destruction of the victims. It goes on to state that the notion of "class struggle" was used as a guideline for aggressive policies that has led to regimes using genocidal means to destroy the "enemies of the working class", leading to the destruction of millions of lives. So Communist mass killing is certainly a valid topic. --Martintg (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2009 (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 Craigiebank, Dundee. While the park has been the subject of secondary, reliable sources, it seems the content would be more suitable within a broader article. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baxter Park

edit
Baxter Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails:WP:NOTABILITY RP459 (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guideline? Care to explain why you feel this article doesn't pass WP:NOTABILITY?--Oakshade (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing up this article! The version that I AFD'd did not show any notability and my quick search did not show me anything that would lend me to think that it was a notable park. As the article stands now I think it passes WP:Notability. RP459 (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2009 (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) 21:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow University F.C.

edit
Glasgow University F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY RP459 (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2009 (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Human Rights Watch

edit
AfDs for this article:
Criticism of Human Rights Watch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An unnecessary POV fork that violates WP:UNDUE. Human Rights Watch is a generally well-regarded NGO that criticizes what it perceives as human rights abuses in various countries. Not surprisingly, some of these countries (and their supporters are not happy about this, and retaliate by questioning HRW's impartiality. The article has allegations of anti-American bias, anti-Israel bias, and anti-Eritrea bias (WTF?) I see no evidence that these criticisms represent a mainstream or consensus view. Those few that are genuinely notable could easily be included in a paragraph or two in the main article. Creating a separate article consisting of nothing but criticism — one that is nearly as long as the main article — is a classic example of undue weight. *** Crotalus *** 16:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Given that criticism sections are considered dodgy WP:UNDUE-wise these days, to have an entire POV-slanted article dedicated to criticism of an organisation is untenable. Cynical (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The criticism of Human Rights Watch is well-sourced, widespread, and very commonplace throughout society (I would have little difficulty finding additional sources with which to expand this article). The nomination states that HRW is a well-regarded NGO, but is that is not really NPOV. Its well-regarded by the U.S. State Department perhaps, and by the liberal-democratic capitalist adherents to globalism. Many, many other people have a contrary view. The article seems too lengthy to Merge with the Human Rights Watch article, but it never-the-less constitutes a collection of notable information on a notable subject. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The motivation behind a keep or a delete is pretty much irrelevant, what matters are the reasons given, and that is all the closer should consider. This is not a vote. Are you now going to check the character and the political views of every single editor contributing to this AFD? Pantherskin (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was a neo-Nazi during the 1990s. I am not one anymore (although neither have I switched my positions 180 degrees and become a liberal). As has already been stated, my political views (both the ones I hold presently, and the ones I used to hold) are not relevant, and I shouldn't be hounded by some troll about a stupid mistake I made ten years ago (and for which I have already been punished). Actions I undertake at this board should be based on their objective merit, not on whether people like whatever it is they think that I believe about abstract socio-political issues. And for the record, I DO agree with many nationalist critiques of Human Rights Watch. Is that not permitted? Are the opinions only of those people who agree with State Department press releases, and Thomas Friedman opinion pieces, considered valid with regard to these discussions? Because I'm pretty sure that's not reflective of official policy. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - the criticism seems to be notable, but having all this content in the main article would violate WP:UNDUE. Pantherskin (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the continuing harassment by Noloop and the nominator Crotalus horridus I ask the deletion reviewer to ignore my keep comment. Pantherskin (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that both of the named users want to delete the page why would you now wish to delete it because you bleive they are harrasing you? why would this change you opinion that this is a worthwhile page that should be keptSlatersteven (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not change my opinion, but if the price of voicing ones opinion on Wikipedia is continued harassment, being called a cockroach, a mentally disturbed psychopath or a gnat that needs to be swat, no thanks, I have better things to do than to expose myself to this kind of harassment. Pantherskin (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make any such statements. I simply replaced a statement you had removed that said (correctly) that your account was a suspected sockpuppet. If someone did refer to you in the manner described above, then that is a violation of WP:CIVIL and is not acceptable behavior. *** Crotalus *** 16:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's obvious propaganda. Has anybody actually checked the so-called sourcing? The first ref is just some wikilinks to other articles. The 2nd ref is to a self-published blog. And so on. This trick of putting in false references and then calling it "sourced text" needs some attention on wikipedia. Noloop (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first refs are articles in national magazines and not wikilinks. The second ref might be a self-published source, but is only used as a refernce about the source itself. And so on I guess. Pantherskin (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. Click on the refs and you are taken to Wikipedia articles.
  • If you see a reference like "The New Republic, January 20, 1986; The New Republic, August 22, 1988; The National Interest, Spring 1990." you have to go to the library or try EBSCO, not click on the link. Pantherskin (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but there is no reference to any article. It's just a list of magazines, and given the integrity brought to most of the other sourcing, the assumption of good faith is seriously eroded.Noloop (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went thru over half the refs. Most of them are complete garbage, and some are outright lies. You have to actually follow the links in the refs. Here's a diff to my summary of the lying with sources done in the article: [49] Noloop (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepIf there are issues with refs then they can be changed but I do not feel, that that is reason enought to delete a page. Put the citations tag needed on the page instead.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you take out all the illegitimately sourced material, violations of WP:WEIGHT, etc., you are left with a stub. See the Talk page. Noloop (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also source 3 does mention the otherthrow of Haitis govenment, its just does not mention the Prime minister by name.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep* The fact that HRW is a human rights organization is not sufficient reason to ignore that as an organization its good intentions do not always have positive results. Criticism of Human Rights Watch necessary for preserving the organization. HRW's mission is "dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world. We stand with victims and activists to prevent discrimination, to uphold political freedom, to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime, and to bring offenders to justice. We investigate and expose human rights violations and hold abusers accountable. We challenge governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights law. We enlist the public and the international community to support the cause of human rights for all." The last line says it all. When enlisting the public and international community they are inviting bias into their organization. People that work for such organizations enter their line of work because they feel personally compelled to involve themselves in a situation. This creates bias, this bias is explicit in HRW's performance as you can see if you read any of NGO Monitor's reports (which are founded in credible empirical evidence). This criticsm is well founded and accordingly deserves its own posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingcredibility (talk • contribs) — Kingcredibility (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment - The notion that NGO Monitor's reports are founded on credible empirical evidence is rather absurd as you can see from NGO_Monitor#Criticism. Ironically it's this kind of nonsense with people sourcing criticism from clearly unreliable partisan sources that results in deletion nominations. If people really want the article to remain in existence then they shouldn't source criticism from the likes of NGO Monitor, CAMERA and the usual suspects. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to me a valid article, may be unpolished, certainly for an org as large as HRW, criticism is not unnatural and may be too large to handle in main article. As a side note (and not related to my vote), did a look at the edit history and I think a significant portion of the article was deleted by Crotalus after his nomination of the article for deletion. And also his deleting an external link to NGO Monitor: If the site was indeed biased, the better way would have been to mention it, and keep it, as they are clearly not NN. As for NPOV, any article about "criticism of" something is likely to contain POV in links. There are no "scientific truths" in politics: all we can do is to see whether this POV have reasonable basis, and to cover both sides. Greenleaf (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case I wasn't clear, I was *for* keeping the controversy from notable sources and perhaps categorize them with their alliance, and editing the article to make it balanced, not by just summarily deleting what you call "crap" written by what you call "fruitcakes". I gave the reference to the LDS article as an example for this. So it's pointless to ask me to go ahead and delete it. It's puzzling to me how you got the impression that I thought that article "irredeemably flawed" because my point was precisely the opposite. I think the right way to handle at least the notable sources is to mention the criticism and *preferably* mention the response to it as well.
About Barrack Obama conspiracy theories: they do have their own page as you kindly pointed out: This discussion is about Criticism of HRW page, not about HRW page itsef. Your example, if anything, is relevant here only as an example of material that shouldn't make to main article getting legitimate pages on their own. I hope you wouldn't raise WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS on this too now? Greenleaf (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


If the article was edited to comply with policies it would non-existent or a stub. One problem with it is that it treats disagreement with HRW as a criticism of HRW. The bulk of the article is just a list of disagreements, and since almost all of them come from entities whose human rights record was criticized, it pure 100% unadulterated bias. The other problem is that half the sourcing is fraudulent.Noloop (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Taking the Saudi funding fiasco as an example (started by NGO Monitor), I think that is notable and worth including with attribution of statements to sources of course. It was important enough for HRW to issue a press release. It is notable that governments sometimes almost openly declare war on HRW. I don't see bias as a problem as it's always possible to balance these things with the views of HRW or others. What I do see as a serious problem is editors adding criticism and then stopping there when in fact they should also be adding the counter arguments/responses to comply with NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - (1) Regarding WP:UNDUE: HRW's own viewpoint - one of its main reasons for existence - is that people should have the right to criticise governments, political parties, organisations, private companies, etc. without risking imprisonment, torture or being killed for the fact that they spoke up. In this sense, having a full article documenting known criticism of HRW is fully within the spirit of what HRW is all about. i am sure that even HRW has published some self-criticisms - it's not a cult organisation. (2) The criticism article, preceding the deletion of many sections, may have lacked proper referencing, but that requires work, not deletion. (3) Another important point is that en.wikipedia is not USA.wikipedia.org and it is not westernworld.wikipedia.org either. Please read the documented, systematic bias discussed in WP:BIAS. Given that approximately 100% of HRW's funding is from the West, this is an objective reason to suspect that a pro-Western bias is very likely, and to especially seek WP:RS in non-Western information sources, in order to improve the overall neutrality of en.wikipedia. In other words, "majority" in WP:UNDUE for the subject of HRW and criticism of HRW refers to a world-wide majority, not a USA+Israel+UK-wide majority. (4) "WTF" in the reasons for deletion - "anti-Eritrea bias (WTF?)" - is not an argument. Boud (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion on whether the article is possible in principle. Criticism of HRW may be a notable topic, but that is different from some editors declaring it to be notable because they want the article, regardless of what documentable, encyclopedic criticism is actually referencable. The article as it stood was a dumping ground for someone who just wanted to attack HRW. I have now read every reference that was used in the article at the time of this nomination. If you haven't checked the sources as I have, please don't presume to know what was valid or complain about my removals. The article used blogs as sources of fact, it flat out lied about what sources said, it represented an undergraduate opinion piece as the reporting of the publisher, it gave refs that didn't exist, and so on. The section on Eritrea referred to nothing but Eritrea's disagreement with HRW about one HRW report on Eritrea. If that's a basis for inclusion, the article will be an endless, mammoth dumping ground of governments bashing HRW reports about just those specific governments. The examples need to be systemic criticism, and given the politicized, POV-filled nature of the topic, the sourcing needs to be rigorous. I started a list of guiding principles for this article on the Talk page, please contribute to it if you wish. Noloop (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refer back to the reference you removed (Re: If you haven't checked the sources as I have...it represented an undergraduate opinion piece as the reporting of the publisher). It appears that the paper is introduced by the Director of SAAG who says, "..Unfortunately, their reports on events in India have been one-sided and biased. Rather than making an objective assessment of communal violence and human rights violations, the reports generally are based on half-truths, distortions and sometimes outright falsehoods..." This is not an one-off disagreement with HRW, but a general criticism of HRW's reports and methodology on India. Furthermore, the author of the article is not merely an unknown undergraduate. He has authored a book in Indian politics [50]. From "About the author": He graduated with highest honors (Summa Cum Laude), was elected to the prestigious Phi Beta Kappa Society and was awarded the Richard Ullman Prize for best thesis on American foreign policy in the Woodrow Wilson School. Bahl has written extensively on South Asian matters. SAAG has more articles written by Bahl. The deletions you did need undoing. -FriendOfPanda (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pay attention. I didn't delete the information you're talking about. The criticism might be relevant to the article, except at the moment it is one guest opinion by one individual. Normally, that's the basis for a sentence or two, not an entire section. Feel free to contribute to the consensus process on the article like anyone else.Noloop (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point was that it's not just a non-noteworthy nobody's opinion. The writer, undergraduate or not, seems to have a reasonable standing. Greenleaf (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking more about the idea of a POV fork. What would people think if I created an article called "Praise for Human Rights Watch" and filled it with all the great compliments people have given HRW? Taking criticism (or praise) out of the main article takes it out of context. Noloop (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Human Rights Watch. The key here is that this is a POV fork. It needs to be merged back into the main article. Yes, a straight merger would make that article overly long... but that can be fixed by summarizing and editing the material properly. By combining similar criticisms together and selecting the most notable criticisms (or omitting the least notable criticisms... not every criticism needs to be mentioned) the resulting section can be shortened considerably and given Due Weight. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    comment: Given that one of the arguments about notability at the top of this AFD is "WTF" (i.e. "What the fxxx!!!") regarding a country especially notable as one of the few (only?) African countries to have gained independence in the 1990's, with a population bigger than that of Ireland, i'm not convinced that it would be easy to get consensus. Notability guidelines do not yet take into account the systematic bias in the English language wikipedia which is particularly bad when it comes to rich country vs poor country biases, internet-rich-country vs internet-poor-country biases, English-as-a-native-language vs non-native-En-speaker, etc. This is not a criticism against any individual, it's a statistical demographic property of us as en.wikipedians - see WP:BIAS for details. i haven't looked at the recent state of the article in detail, so i'm not sure that its recent content would help oppose the known WP:BIAS, but for people willing/able to invest time in trying to debias it, i expect it would be easier to debias without pressure to compress information too much - i.e. easier in a separate article than just a section. HRW is a big organisation that has existed for a long time - it would be surprising if criticism of it would decrease rather than increase with time. Another way of putting it: for judging Due Weight on this type of subject, we are very sensitive to the need for having editors with a very different demographic selection than what is most likely our actual demographic selection. Boud (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Boud. The only thing that makes the criticism article (superficially) a POV fork is the title. Give it a neutral title and include HRW responses to notable criticism and it's not a POV fork. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The purpose of the article is to give a platform to critics of HRW. It's as inappropriate as an article, "In Praise of HRW" that just listed a bunch of compliments. That's what makes it a POV fork, I think (not sure I understand the term exactly). Noloop (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying the purpose of Wikipedia is to give a platform to CAMERA/NGO Monitor etc. Thankfully it isn't. The purpose of the article should be to collect together notable commentary about HRW. That commentary could be positive or negative. It could come from a government criticising or supporting HRW, another NGO criticising or supporting HRW etc etc and from HRW themselves in response to commentary of course. If it doesn't comply with the mandatory, core policies (particularlyWP:V and WP:NPOV) then it shouldn't be there. There's lots of commentary about HRW, some of it is notable and some of it can't be summarised into a soundbite to be squeezed into the main article. We have to deal with it. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noloop, I also disagree with your point. The "purpose of the page" is to document/cover the criticism of HRW in a balanced way as possible, including HRW's responses to the criticism: To document what the critics say, NOT to provide an exclusive "platform" to the critics, any more than such pages as Gaia hypothesis or Flat Earth or Criticism of Holocaust denial pages are supposed to be "platforms" for someone. Greenleaf (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2009 (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. Triplestop x3 17:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

David Eppstein

edit
David Eppstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet Wiki criteria for any notability. Does not meet wiki criteria for academics either. Seems the guy is a wannabe —Preceding unsigned comment added by BirminghamAV (talk • contribs)

Eppstein needs his eyes testing. There are two accounts arguing for the keep but there is also independent wiki users who have no connection to the subject - check the history page as well as the discusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BirminghamAV (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


NOTE

The author David Eppstein has a history of harassing article and can be logged back to 2008. He is currently engaged in a debate on the Matthew Tye page and has harranged the discussion with weak arguments. As per the wiki guidelines the admins will judge the page on its content rather than the number of objections mr eppstein has made. Note well that it is not the number of accounts that support a page - one is suffiencent but its merit.--BirminghamAV (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition this page should be removed as it violtes the wiki terms and condition with the user engaged in agressive and malicious activity on the site, rather than furthering wikis good article policy

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark matter in fiction

edit
Dark matter in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate compilation of miscellany and trivia. Because of the nature of the article's subject it cannot be made encyclopedic. Strong Delete Auspex1729 (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure its keep materiel? There are four deletes and one keep. Keep argument is "notable part of fiction" which means that where its a notable apart of a fictional work, it should be mentioned in the article on that book/movie/whatever and linked to the Dark matter article - not at all that it should be kept, let alone rescued! Rescue some bio about an Asian musician, why don't you. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
we do not tabulate the results at the end of one day, but 7. DGG (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, you know who I am. Who are you talking to? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally, this is an "In Popular Culture" article on a hard-science topic. The editors who care about Dark Matter aren't going to want this there, which is probably why it's a separate entry here. Nevertheless, surely much/most of this can be sourced, since it's the interaction of a currently-hypothesized-as-factual type of matter in fiction. The "real world" applicability would be the evolution of fictional depictions of the topic as the theory has gained recognition. Jclemens (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat myself, I suppose. Are you talking to me? Because if you are, then I have no idea why yout hink I suddenly lost my mind. I know all this. I'm asking Jclemens what his "keep" rationale is. He hasn't responded. You have written a good bit, but it all seems very off-topic to me. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I gave a perfectly valid response, and didn't attack you in any way. If you'd like to refactor your rather belligerent statement into a question on what I've said, I'd be happy to clarify any particular concerns you might have. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When notable cultural concepts are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic, and should be brought together, not scattered over multiple articles. That's what encyclopedias do,. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the fictional work directly. I am unaware of the concept of "serious listcruft" except as meaning IREALLLYDONTLIKEIT, which is seriously not an argument.. DGG (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Dark matter Good God, this is serious listcruft, coming from someone who personally enjoys theoretical physics. This is also not an encyclopedic discussion of Dark matter in fiction but just a bunch of random tidbits taken out of their original context and put here through original research. An encyclopedic cleanup of this page would only leave the lede remaining, which would be suitable in the main Dark matter article. An encyclopedic article is supposed to have one topic, with an exploration of that topic being the main body of the article. An encyclopedic article shouldn't consist of nothing but random name-drops of everytime the subject has ever been mentioned in every single area of fiction known to man. A couple of prose paragraphs summing up this data in the main article is sufficient. We aren't an indiscriminate collection of information, and we don't need to list every single appearance of this subject in order to develop an encyclopedic understanding of it. Redirect this back to the main article and summarise the raw data there.ThemFromSpace 04:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listing the works in which the there occurs is appropriate, as it brings the themes together. The article can also be thought of a a navigational device, and one of the purpose of a navigational device is useful collocation of the material. The article does not attempt to list every occurance in fiction--that would be indiscriminate. But it discriminates in two ways: it lists the significant appearances in notable fiction. That's a single topic. In many cases in Wikipedia we do not fully explain a subject, but just present it. Not every article has to be a featured article. You are essentially objecting because it is not done as well as it might be done, and the solution to that is to improve it. AfD is not for articles that just need improvement. I am aware that you like physics, and for that matter so does the nom. I don't see the relevance to deletion, except possibly you object to the manner of its usual presentation in fiction as not sufficiently accurate & thus wish to remove information about the discussions that do occur? DGG (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listing minor appearances in notable works is not appropriate, as there is no consise subject to the article. You say that each of these is a significant appearance but that leads me to doubt that you've actually read the article. Most of these appearances are inconsequential to the element of fiction they belong in. Many are beyond trivial, such as "In the game series Boktai, dark matter is the substance that allows immortals and vampires to regenerate from any injury over time and must be purified from them in order to permanently destroy them." and "In the Star Trek: Voyager episode "One Small Step", the crew encounter a Dark Matter asteroid while observing a gravimetric spatial anomaly." Reading over the entire list, it is very hard to find information in this article which contributes to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject as a whole. While this article itself has a single topic, none of the subject matter is about that topic directly. We cannot present all the evidence we can find and expect the reader to draw a conclusion from the evidence; that is original research. We need third-party sources that draw the synthesis together for us, and until there is third-party evidence that the usage of dark matter in Star Trek, Ringworld's Children, Super Mario Galaxy, and all the other sub-subjects in this article is both related and notable than we cannot present an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. I have looked for this evidence and cannot find any. Unless it is presented than the article is nothing but original research. ThemFromSpace 03:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Pong

edit
Wall Pong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Local non-notable game made up in one day. No GHIts and no GNEWS. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2009 (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of icon software

edit
List of icon software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Comment He refers to WP:NOT policy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talk • contribs)
Comment That's rather unspecific, perhaps you mean WP:NOTDIR, which doesn't appear to apply here anyway. --Hm2k (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2009 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Billups

edit
Andy Billups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural: fixing nomination for another editor who didn't understand the procedure. The essence of his nomination was "This Article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources since the sources are either self-promoting websites or links to obscure publications such as a 6 year old journal that does not even refer to Andy Billups ... this Article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) not least of all as there is nothing notable whatsoever. Its only function is to spam Wikipedia with self promotion/advertising of a person who is not notable." Black Kite 13:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There is no mention of 'andy Billups' in any reputable music directory which includes Amazon, the BBC, itunes or any other KNOWN or notable directory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiwentang (talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Initially I thought this article had a deserved status, but on reflection I'd suggest its probably best to merge the verifiable sections into The Hamsters article. A few minutes searching provides a series of links only to material about the band, and not the subject. I realise the music press isn't readily available online, but it shouldn't be difficult for anyone with an interest to insert citations to other published offline sources; if it is, then as per WP:BLP I'd suggest those unreferenced sections should go. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order. I am not the subject of this article, I merely created and wrote it. I have no connection to the band other than as a fan (regardless of what the below indef'd editor suggests). --WebHamster 22:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, look at the date of that diff, and then look at the tense of my statement. Duh! --WebHamster 17:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It really stretches credibility to say you have no connection when you were their webmaster.. even if you no longer are. Since you're unwilling or unable to acknowledge your conflict of interest, you really ought to just stay out of the AFD. Wikipedia is no place for people who are deliberately misleading. Friday (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used to work for the RAC and I have no connection to them either. I had a job as webmaster, I no longer do. I have email contact, something I've never denied, but that's it. I should also point out that I haven't edited that article for months until Yiwentag went on his/her troll-based disruption after the 1 year block (for exactly the same disruption) was up. There is no CoI here. I am just in a position of being able to check facts with them (something anyone with email access can equally do), that's all. If I was trying to hide the fact I wouldn't have admitted it 2 years ago now would I? Either way, this is irrelevant to this discussion and just plays into the disruption Yiwentang is trying to achieve. --WebHamster 19:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for assuming you were the article subject. As Yiwentang called you "andy" in my second diff above, and as the article is called Andy, I just assumed. However, I am concerned about your post just above me here. Is there not a WP:OR issue in you saying you're still in contact for fact checking? I learned this a while back that even with a 1-on-1 interview with an article subject, the community frowns and pouts on using info obtained from such an interview in an article because it's "considered original research and not reliably or verifiably sourced" - even though I offered to upload audio recordings of the interview. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 20:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yiwentang says a lot of things, the majority being out and out lies in order to piss me about. As for the original research, yes I know the rules, I've been around in one form or another since 2003. I have not used anything even remotely contentious about the band that has come directly from them. In my understanding of the phrase "fact checking" it means to check facts that are already written about, not using direct quotes to write new facts. That wouldn't be fact checking, that would be fact creating would it not? I have used communications with the band to find out what is right and what is wrong then removed information that is wrong. Any contentious, or at least facts I considered may be contentious, facts have been referenced where possible. The problem with this band's provenance and demographic is not net based. It's in Olde Worlde paper publications. Which although I know the references exist I can't always track down. If I could they would be in the article. Does that answer your concerns? Incidentally I should point out that one of the IP editors on the Andy Billups article was Billups himself. I then edited what he had written to make it more in line with WP policy. --WebHamster 23:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to this Webhamster is now claiming to be Andy Billups [[54]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the above statement you really don't have a fucking clue how this place works do you? Duh! --WebHamster 16:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The perhaps you would care to explain, after all this does seem to be a user page for user webhamster/andy billups.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't care to explain, but if you look on your own talk page you may get a clue {Shakes head. Unbelievable.}. Meanwhile may I suggest looking at WP:OUTING before you try to commit any more faux pas. --WebHamster 16:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So its a sandbox, then why not just have said so, I therfore appoligise for my mistake. As to WP:OUTING as i did not post the information it would not have been outing (you would have posted it).Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'comment'Is it possible to discuss purely the article without reference to any dispute or abusive dialogue that was started as a means of sidetracking the main issue?

Anyone can see that the few sources the article has are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight. They include a website created by the band themselves and publications that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiwentang (talk • contribs) 15:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - Was the subject of an entire article about focal dystonia, is currently on regular playlist rotation on BBC radio. Most 3rd party sources are under his pseudonym and are on offline media, bass player magazines and the ilk. As I'm not a bass player I don't buy the mags and as he lives at the other end of the country I'm not able to get free access to his stock of back issues or anyone else's for that matter. Not everything in life has an online link and this musician, and the band he's in, is of the generation and music style that attracts a demographic with less than stellar computer/internet interests. Accordingly it takes longer to track down the sources. --WebHamster 22:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verifable appearances on any TV channel, no singles/albums in any chart whatsoever and a false reference to my magazine !!! 86.168.226.64 (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC) (indented, known sock)[reply]
With the help of someone else we have clarified that the reference to Blueprint magazine is in fact a link to a blog created by "gdb@psychology.nottingham.ac.uk". Care to comment? As for yiwentang she is probably the anonymous person who tipped us off that our name was being abused in order to get work for a pub band - the sort that will ring up a pub in East Preston and say "yeah we're mentioned in wikipedia" just to get a bit of work. What a bunch of losers.86.168.226.64 (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, yet again troll. The band article does not refer in any way to the Blues In Britain magazine. It refers to a dead-tree magazine called Blueprint that is no longer published. --WebHamster 17:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked 86.168.226.64 for engaging in personal attacks("What a bunch of losers"), I also strongly suspect that this is in fact Yiwentang evading his/her indef block. I hope this will allow this discussion to continue without name-calling. Chillum 00:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:V and WP:COS - the whole basis of the article seems to be a telephone conversation between its author and one of the band members. Also WP:Vthe reference in its mother article is unverifiable due to the magazine being "no longer published" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliviateacher (talk • contribs) 12:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of independent discussion of the subject in reliable, verifiable sources. WebHamster's previous or current connections are not very relevant here--surely we can judge the article on its merits which, I'm sad to say, are few. For instance, the New Faces thing happens before Billups joins Whisky Mac (an otherwise non-notable band, apparently), two of the other references are discographies (but I don't doubt that the article is truthful), the dystonia note is not in a reliable source and of questionable relevance anyway (the latter also applies to the Faith endorsement), and the Round the Horne reference adds no notability to the subject. The airplay, the on-air progress report--none of that adds up to notability. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 of the sources seem to be about things other then Mr Billups. One appears to be brocken.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete a search of the local papers web site (Southend) produced the following httphttp://www.echo-news.co.uk/search/?search=Andy+Billups This does not tell me he is even notable in Southend, at least not enough for him to be reported about. just for comparison http://www.echo-news.co.uk/search/?search=helen+mirren thus they do report on notable people in (or from) the area.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't very good at this are you? Billups doesn't live in Southend and hasn't done since the early 90s. So why would you expect to see him in the Southend press under his real name? YOu either haven't read the article or you are unable to work out simple and logical things like this. I suspect the latter given your faux pas from yesterday. --WebHamster 14:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Becasue he plays in a Southend based band? Nor under his stage name http://www.echo-news.co.uk/search/?search=Ms+Zsa+Zsa+Poltergeist. Odd that he plays in a Southend based band but does not live there. Moreover the articel does say he no longer lives in Southend.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So are you looking for band associations or him? Like I said he doesn't live in Southend and hasn't done for a long while. And no it's not very odd at all, why would it be? Your attempts at doing your best to get rid of the article (and to get me warned) are getting more and more tenuous. It's looking likely that the article is going to be deleted anyway so why bother? Or are you another one of those stalkers that seem to end up following me around? And yes I did notice you trying to fan the flames that I may be using sockpuppets to disrupt things. If you're so concerned and obviously have time on your hands, then why don't you learn how to produce a sockpuppet report and then report me. It's always cool to look silly in more than one place on WP. But back to Billups, you may have more luck using "zsa zsa" and dropping the "poltergeist". It's rarely used these days. And for your homework, let's see if you can find the musician I do actually work for as you are obviously interested in who I am and in trying to out me. --WebHamster 15:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said the articel makes no mention of him no longer living in Southend its very hard to check facts you do not have. Za Za does bring up one mention from a year ago, so at least wew do have a local source now, but just one source about the band, not excatly heavy coverage an artciel about the band not him. As to stalking Well you have edited far more pages then I have visted oe edited. Moreover on the talk page you link to I make it clear that I expresswed doubdt it was you. In fact I make mention of the fact you had a right to be informed about an incident that I was not part of, terrible stalking that. I have no interest in you or who you work for, but I do have an interest in trying to make this project work, and it seems that you may be the subject (and were not informed) of a black sock attack. If you were not then something else is clearly goning on, both of which were the concearns I asked about dealing with.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check the history of the article. Some bright soul decided to delete the info about his current location as not being "relevant". It looks like it was relevant after all, who'd have thought it eh? As for the stalking/sock puppet business, well it was already designated as resolved at ANI. So why would an uninvolved neophyte editor like yourself want to bring the matter up unsolicited on a non-admin's user page? Strikes me as a way of making trouble for the alleged sockpuppet. Not to mention of course the accusation of my identity above. I suggest you keep your nose out of my business as your incompetent atttempts will get you into trouble and get me pissed off.--WebHamster 23:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would appear that his curretn locatio is relevant, given the degree to which he has moved about. I notice though that it was not sourced. As to pother matters, I shall refrn from reply as this is about Mr Billups and not you. If you wish I shall reply on your talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Binu Jayawardena

edit
Binu Jayawardena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable per WP:BIO, WP:ACADEMIC and WP:ACTOR: student who won a medal for top marks at his secondary school, started a non-notable business and appeared once on a television program Per Ardua (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep votes did not present a strong argument of notability compared to the deletes. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luci Thai

edit
Luci Thai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no indication the subject of this article meets the WP:Pornbio criteria for notability (a single award nomination is insufficient to achieve notability under those standards), nor do there seem to be any other indications of notability demonstrated within the article. The article is also very poorly sourced, in that virtually none of its contents are sourced; the only info that is sourced is her place of birth, and her nomination for that single award - and in the latter case, the link is dead. Furthermore, this article is distinctly vulgar and unencyclopedic in tone, littered with references to "double penetration," "double anal," "double vaginal," as well as text alluding to the relative size of the penises of the various men she's appeared with. And of course, none of this is sourced. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A single AVN nomination doesn't meet the WP:Pornbio criteria for notability. The subject must win an award, and/or be nominated during multiple years. One nomination, in one year, ain't notable. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2009 (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harald Dahl

edit
Harald Dahl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. No claim to notability other than being father of author Roald Dahl. References appear to prove Roald's notability but not necessarily his fathers'. RadioFan (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2009 (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Bowker

edit
David Bowker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability Deb (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see the article so improved since I first nominated it. It still baffles me that he gets so few Google hits - you shouldn't have to go to his book titles to find him! Deb (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anyone who takes the trouble to google the writer's last four novels will find rave reviews from 'Kirkus Reviews', 'The Independent on Sunday', 'The Literary Review', 'The Chicago Tribune', 'Esquire', 'Entertainment Weekly, 'The Times, 'The Express' and individuals as diverse as the actor Martin Clunes and the bestselling author Lee Child. Bowker's episodes for 'Casualty' and 'Coronation Street' must have each gained at least five million viewers, as both shows are regular ratings winners. Hardly global fame, then, but solid evidence of notability.

Badflower (talk) 13:39 8 August, 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • KEEP. Been reading this thread with some bemusement. The author's most recent novel, 'How To Be Bad' has been optioned by 'Fight Club' screenwriter Jim Uhls. I would argue that this alone makes the author notable. Otherwise, you may as well delete most of the authors on WIKI...Suziekemp 17:36 7 August 2009
A bit curious that you are suddenly appearing from nowhere to comment on this proposal, Suziekemp. And you seem to have the same trouble placing your comments correctly as User:Badflower does. Deb (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Icons of American culture

edit
Icons of American culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Looks like a pretty blatant example of original research to me, and some of the parts of it look unsalvageably POV ("Humvee: the coolest military vehicle ever."???). I doubt whether this could be turned into an encyclopedic articole, at least in its current format; the subject may be such that an encyclopedic subject could be written, but this ain't it. Grutness...wha? 10:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this stuff was included in Americana, simply listing a wide variety of things without any content, and there they stayed for several years. I thought this was intesting but not very satisfactory, so collected images to start fleshing out the subject, intending to contribute to that article. Quickly realised it belongs somewhere else completely, hence this stub article, and a severe trim at Americana. I'm well aware how sketchy this is so far which is why I've asked for views, but the sources do support what I've started, it's not just POV - and hardly original. The gallery format is temporary, a way to outline the subject until there's a decent paragraph for each topic, and no doubt those themes would reorganise where some prove fruitful and others not. Maybe I should have developed it more before going live. Hold on and see how it develops? ProfDEH (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the subject has a lot of potential to be a good article. I really don't know if articles are expected to appear fully-fledged, and I've just made this public way too early.
In response to specific criticisms: random examples - yes, there is just one example for each theme, I discarded other examples to get a consist format, until there is a concise overview of each topic and a reasonably representative selection of examples. POV - yes some of the captions were hastily written, I've edited out the silliest bits now. It's not an easy subject to approach objectively, not like Architectural Drawing for example - clearly more rigor required. Original research - I can only assert that the references support the idea of iconic status. Format: the gallery is not ideal but I wanted to start with some images to encourage contributions and discussion. I obviously want to get this to an normal Wikipedia article format as soon as possible. Unless it's deleted, which look extremely likely. Anyway I've added references and cut out POV as far as possible, to show serious intent. ProfDEH (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2009 (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. getting more like a WP:SNOW here JForget 01:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Greenberg

edit
Brooke Greenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. See WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:BIO1E. Nothing else to say really... DJ 10:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Orduña

edit
Diego Orduña (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This player fails both WP:ATHLETE (as he hasn't "competed at the fully professional level of a sport") and WP:GNG (as he hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Recreate if & when he meets either of these guidelines in the future. This article is a contested PROD; no rationale was given by article's author for the removal of the template. GiantSnowman 10:08, 3 August 2009 (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Lichaj

edit
Eric Lichaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD was removed for no reason. Hasn't made a professional appearance yet. "He looks to be a part of Villa's plan for the future." is WP:CRYSTAL Spiderone (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - If you use the logic that he hasn't made a first team appearnce yet at a professional level then we should delete all players that haven't done so. Just searching for a few minutes and I find the following players who haven't made a professional appearance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Dos_Santos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Coquelin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Amos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Spearing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Darby

I don't see a Marked for Deletion for these players. That's completely hypocritical. (talk) 6 August 2009 (UTC)

............or alternatively it could just be that people haven't noticed those articles yet. Maybe it would be better to assume good faith rather than slinging insults around -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.....oh, and Ben Amos has made one professional appearance for Manchester United for starters..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All those players have played professional football apart from Dos Santos who has since been deleted. Spiderone (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. Except Ben Amos, NONE of those players have made a professional appearance according to their Wiki page. Notice the 0 appearances for their club. LukeAtmiaz (talk) 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The zero in the infobox means they haven't played in a domestic league match. All of the players with articles you have cited have played in a professional first team match in either the Champions League or the League Cup. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, Lichaj has only played in the Peace Cup and the reserves. Spiderone (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure but here it is: [58] Spiderone (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Felony (album)

edit
Felony (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL violation Tavix |  Talk  00:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LibStar (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)(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. Consensus here suggests that the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. That several sources simply mention the topic is not usually enough to establish notability. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@icon sushi

edit
AfDs for this article:
@icon sushi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

--Hm2k (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete
    • One source is a product discussion. There are zillions of those in computer magazines about all and sundry.
    • One source is a download link.
    • Two sources mention the use of the software in an article of more general scope; they are explicitly not about @icon sushi. --Pgallert (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : The above issue came up in another discussion. I don't know the context here and haven't checked links but consider the situation where you have a piece of software that is used in some scientific papers. It implements some algrorithm ( probably published in academic journals to give it known properties useful to scientific authors ) and is only mentioned in a few sentences in "methods" section or paper and maybe some acknowledgements. CNN hasn't picked up on it yet. I would consider this to be notable even if no articles solely about the product exist. The wiki article could reasonably state, " this is a commcercial implementation of the foo algorithm [ foo papers ] and has been used to analyze blah[blah paper], duh[duh paper] etc". I guess you could make a case for making the article on the foo algorithm rather than the software, but many passing mentions depending on context, could establish notability ( if you can find a policy or guideline to the contrary fine but if this is just essay issues, I'd be more concerned with what the intended wiki reader thinks). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom absolutely nothing is noteworthy about this product. JBsupreme (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The ZDNET review establishes notability. Note that it's not just a download page but an actual review written by the ZDNET staff. Laurent (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The ZDNET review is brief and its contents do not establish significant notability for the subject. Some guy (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Your comment seems unjustified. There is clearly significant coverage for notability. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. ZDnet are credible publishers and their authors are trustworthy and authoritative.
  • Delete No references from reliable sources with proper editorial conntrol, looks like product cruft to me. --HighKing (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have noticed that editors here are not clarifying their statements by including references to Wikipedia guidelines and policies to support their decision. It's too easy to be passive or ignorant. I encourage you to be specific about exactly what is in violation here. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The lack of notability seems to stem from a lack of multiple reliable sources. We trim it down to the ZDNet article, and that's but one review. There's plenty of precedent for that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There's 4 reliable sources that all mention @icon sushi. The ZDnet and Winfuture links are short write ups, the WindowsMag and Citrix are reliable sources that demonstrate usage which support the first two sources. Please remember that this is only a stub and there are more sources available. --Hm2k (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment To support my last comment, i've added more references[63], including references from allbusiness.com and from Vietnamese newspaper VnExpress. There's now 6 (fairly) reliable sources, surely that's sufficient for notability for now... --Hm2k (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 07:13, 9 August 2009 (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. JForget 00:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black holes in fiction

edit
Black holes in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article's only content is a list of trivia and pop culture references. Auspex1729 (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed to keep as the coverage Colonel Warden found (six bullets down) satisfies coverage of the subject. WP:N asks for sources plural but I'm satisfied with the book Colonel Warden found plus that there is a verifiable list of black holes being used in fiction. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what isn't verifiable: that the fiction exists, or that it discusses black holes? The content in a fiction can be sourced from the work itself. DGG (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Topics need to be notable in and of themselves. The topic is black holes in fiction. Unless someone independent and reliable writes about that, the article isn't notable (or, if you prefer, verifiable from independent sources; they mean the same thing). Mintrick (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2009 (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 9/11 Truth. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q Group

edit
Q Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Ah, you're right--redirect was a more appropriate suggestion. --  bsmithme  06:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. I'd go with the notes on any conspiracy theories behind 9/11. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Yes, only one person wrote the report about this, but it's also been covered by a mainstream media source. I'm not opposed to a redirect, but only as long as the bulk of the article is merged into the directed page. Somebody keeps deleting this entire page and then not moving any of the information onto the parent. Miserlou (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, at the risk of sounding like a loon, is it worth bring up that because this article's topic is related to internal secrecy and suppression of information, does that change the way this should be arbitrated? Miserlou (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been redirecting it and if your only problem is the information not being moved you can do that yourself since it will still be included in the page history.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2009 (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 A7 --B (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Classroom Detective Story

edit
A Classroom Detective Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film. Fails WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a film made as a school project. How unnotable can you get? --Sophitessa (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Completely nn. Tim Song (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to go along with the article on Thomas Newman (actor) - also non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe407 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 3 August 2009 (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 consensus for deletion; editorial decisions should be discussed on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of organizations in the Honorverse

edit
List of organizations in the Honorverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable, unsourced heap of plot from an alternate universe; from the same franchise authors as 1632 series. nb: recent precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1632 institutions. the elements here are: fictional churches, beliefs, brotherhoods, and committees. note also that the belief that 'women [are] collectively blamed for "the Fall of Man"' is not exactly original. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that wp:fiction is highly contentious. Debresser (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tour de Force (expression)

edit
Tour de Force (expression) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The dictionary definition is already covered at Tour de Force and I don't see any possibility of expanding this article beyond a dictionary definition ThaddeusB (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2009 (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 procedural close as keep. During the pendency of this discussion, the page was merged into schools of Ninjutsu. Being a pirate, not a ninja, I have no competence to judge the substantive merits of dab's recent edits to that page, other than to observe that they appear reasonably plausible. But this page now being a redirect means that Redirects for Discussion, not Articles for Deletion, would have jurisdiction over whether it belongs or not, since all the AfD notice does now is prevent the redirect from operating. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-ninja

edit
Neo-ninja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neo-ninja is, you guessed it, a neologism. It has zeron hits in google scholar and 8 hits in google books. At least 3 of those books actually cites WP as the source for its inclusion in their book. The term is found on discussion forums and the odd magazine, but not a word in common usage in reliable sources. There have been attempts to merge the article, but some have resisted it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge into schools of Ninjutsu. Seriously, the merge tag was already there before you submitted this AfD, you could just have done the honours. --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously, a merge was proposed back in January and that merger tag was removed until you re-added it. The problem is that "neo-ninja" is still a neologism and just burying it in another article doesn't change that. In fact, it gives it some sort of legitimacy. As I pointed out in the nom, others have already used WP as a source for it in their books. A simple re-direct without a merger might be ok, but the term is simply made up and not in wide use by reliable sources. Keeping it on here just promotes its use. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2009 (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 is a close call, and I've taken quite a bit of time to thoroughly evaluate the discussion. The majority of the editors who participated in this discussion agreed that the topic is not suitable for inclusion as its own article. In the end, there seems to be a consensus to delete; a weak consensus, I grant, but a consensus nonetheless. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutron stars in fiction

edit
Neutron stars in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a trivia page, and has no encyclopedic value. Auspex1729 (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It tells about neutron stars in fiction, giving them significance in popular culture which is part of their overall significance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's circular logic; hey, the concept of "neutron stars in fiction" is significant in popular culture because we say it is. What this is is a list of fictional works in which neutron stars are mentioned ... but that's about as valid, and says about as much, as Tuvan Buddhist monks in fiction, of which examples could no doubt be provided. Make mine Delete.  RGTraynor  23:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be circular logic if I said the neutron stars are notable because of their coverage in non-fiction? Of course not. And fiction plays a role in popular culture and is another kind of notability. That's why we have article on the Millenium Falcon as well as the poorly designed Space Shuttle Atlantis. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, we have an article on the Millennium Falcon because it's discussed substantially in reliable, independent sources. Which is the only form of notability. Mintrick (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, insignificant non-information. Mintrick (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When notable cultural concepts are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the fictional work directly. If there is doubt that the mention in a particular work is significant, that is an editing question to be discussed on the talk page. Deletion is only appropriate if it is being maintained that all such known uses in fiction are incidental, and that would need to be shown, not baldly asserted. The uses here are sufficiently numerous to be kept, sourced properly,and explained , and then expanded. DGG (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A discussion of the phenomenon and its application might be. This isn't; it's just a list, which doesn't specify that neutron stars are used in a significant way in these books (and, in a couple of the cases, are in fact not).  RGTraynor  09:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an editing issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In which case feel free to edit in any reliable sources which, as Marc suggests, discuss the significance of neutron stars in fiction.  RGTraynor  03:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1) there are no sources that discuss the topic of Neutron stars in fiction and as a result this page seems to be is an original research construction. 2) Wikipedia is not a directory and at present that's what this article is. In summary - the article only lists fiction stories that use neutron stars as plot elements, but does not cover, the concept of "neutron stars in fiction" much less cite sources that have covered this concept. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Unbounded and unsourced list of I-spy trivia bound together by the new and novel concept that Neutron stars compose a significant part of popular culture. --Allen3 talk 17:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list is discriminate (it has a clear inclusion criteria) and is hardly original and unsources (the fiction themselves are sources). Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. This is a long-established position in modern philosophy, and the term "libertarianism" is used widely in the literature.[64] This topic is distinct from, though related to, libertarianism in political philosophy [65][66]. The only reason "(metaphysics)" is attached to the name of this article is for disambiguation purposes; software, not semantics. Skomorokh 08:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism (metaphysics)

edit
Libertarianism (metaphysics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete I can not find this as an article or topic in any of the standard philosophy encyclopedias. This break away neologism that now makes it invalid to call supports of Free will against determinism, -libertarians. Rather or not their defense be steeped in metaphysics, simple because no one calls their position this term. Those whom support free will and who deny compatiblism are now is not libertarian because no one may have used used this term (Libertarianism (metaphysics)) to describe their position of supporting free will against determinism. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve: usage is attested to by multiple sources, see article for references. Having said which, the article definitely needs to be chopped down substantially to only that content which can be directly supported by the references given. -- The Anome (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Speedy Keep This article was correctly stubbed a couple of weeks ago because of previous WP:OR issues. There are numerous editors who are currently working to improve both the content and the referencing of this article. As Carrol notes, the concept is over 200 years old, and there are many, many modern references that are being discussed on the talk page. Since the original usage of the word is over 200 years old (see refs in article), and this usage continues to this day (see many many refs on the talk page, some of which have been added to the article), in exactly the context we are using it here, WP:NEO certainly does not apply. Edhubbard (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my vote above from keep to speedy keep, as it is becoming clearer and clearer that the nom'er is abusing AFD in order to make a WP:POINT in what is, in essence a content dispute, and one that he is clearly in the wrong on, based on the massive number of references that he is now continuing to ignore that have been added to the talk page. Edhubbard (talk) 03:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth Blimp

edit
Stealth Blimp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Last week I filed an AFD for the article Atlas Carver, one of two articles I deemed suspicious during a routine pass through our black project pages. This is the other article I deemed suspicious; it seems to be composed almost entirely of eye witness citing, with no real background or development information present for an NPOV take on project. I am of the mind that this whole article may be in open violation of WP:CRYSTAL, hence the afd nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • DON'T Delete There really isn't another neutral source for "stealth blimp" information on the web. Google it and take a look. You are basically saying that there can be no wiki pages on "black projects" because they are classified. Its a catch-22 gentleman. If there is something specific you feel the article needs, then work with me on it and I'll get it up to spec. Hyper formance (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We permit pages on black project, and we do understand that the pages - do to subject matter - will have less than admirable sourcing. That was not my contention in proposing this deletion though; my contention is that one line discusses the stealth blimp and the rest of the article is eyewitness accounts of what may or may not be the blimp. Even the SR-91 page has some technical detail to devolve to readers, and that info is for a plane that has never seen the light of day insofar as the government is concerned. Try harder to find technical info and we will in good faith reconsider our positions. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You guys could certainly help in the search for technical info. With it being a black program and all the pickings will be mighty slim. Additionally I feel the sightings show a statistically relevant pattern that points to the existence of this platform. When many people including pilots and police officers describe the same huge object repeatedly, it is not just a coincidence. These sightings are much more relevant than any other black program sightings. There have literally been hundreds more, but only the most publicized are referenced here.Hyper formance (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with the assessment above by User:EyeSerene --Krelnik (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quoting Hyper formance: Additionally I feel the sightings show a statistically relevant pattern that points to the existence of this platform. That is pure and simple original research. Wikipedia is not a place to draw statistical conclusions, it is a place to list verifiable information. As Tom points out, there is barely a sentence on the supposed blimp in this article. The rest are perfectly summed up by Eyeserene. This doesn't meet any of our core content policies and I don't think it can in the foreseeable future. Woody (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand what you are saying but this particular wiki entry has really been the "tentpole" of Stealth Blimp info on the internet. A google search for "Stealth Blimp" has this wiki entry at #1. Once its deleted, this information gets relegated back to "fringe" status and conspiracy theory sites. This is a real shame gentlemen.Hyper formance (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obvious WP:OR and specifically WP:SYN problems with this article. Until reliable sources can be found for anything related to the topic, it needs to go. Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2009 (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. Discussion regarding potential editoral decisions should continue elsewhere. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Theory of Sailing

edit
The Theory of Sailing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Appears to be pure OR, and the notability is questionable as well. Tim Song (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new article which does need further work on it. It is important to develope articles like this which explain the theories behind such a popular sport. I am not sure what the comments above mean as I am new to wiki. Any advice explaining how to improve this article would be gratefully received.--Ma jo Ward (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: some parts of the topic may normally go into sailing. But, given that that article already has a pretty thorough explanation of the physics and the current shape of the article, I would oppose a merge. Tim Song (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but don't we already have a discussion of this in sailing? Tim Song (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article in sailing does not have enought scope to talk about exactly how a sailor would get the best from his vessel and at the same time refer the sailor to the theories behind these techniques. There is also a page of windsurfing which could also be linked into this article. It does need farther develeopment but as this is a large research area it should be expected that such an article would take time to be developed and will be of great help to those looking for father explaination on this subject. Please also could you tell me what OR is. --Ma jo Ward (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, a manual, a textbook, a complete exposition of all possible details, or a place for original research(OR). Tim Song (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Expand Covered to some extent in the main article on sailing. However, there is the possibility of expansion here in considerably more detail. WP articles do contain information on how to do things, in general outline, though not step by step--it's the best way of making a technical subject clear Anyone who actually tries to sail based only on the instructions in Wikipedia articles would probably progress in a downwards direction. This article also does not come near covering "all possible detail," full detail on this is a long technical book, not a short article. Nor is any of this OR--it has all been covered elsewhere and can be referred to. DGG (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to sailing, with no prejudice to a sourced replacement article being created down the line. As it stands, it's unacceptable for Wikipedia. Mintrick (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up - yes article is written in an essay-style and without references is unclear as to whether article is OR or copyvio or who knows what. However, article quality is not an indicator for deletion. The subject is unquestionably notable and the parent article could be big enough for subarticles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to sailing as per Mintrick. I could possibly convinced to reconsider if it were a simple referenced stub. As is, it doesn't meet WP:V and Aerodynamics already exists. Location (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2009 (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 nomination withdrawn to allow further discussion of relevant standards. Closing this myself despite being the nom. due to the low level of participation. JJL (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Berwick

edit
Stephan Berwick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable martial artist; minor work in film, author of some IKF and BB articles and a couple of general Tai Chi books (e.g. the 48 page "Tai Chi for kids"). Page orphaned apart from a dab for the surname, and only evidence of being noted given is one article in JAMA. He has achieved some minor additional attention [67] per Wikipedia:MANOTE#Martial_artists #1 but does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Page written as promo. JJL (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment anything other than JAMA tends to be unreviewed puff-pieces so I give that very little weight. Having written that many articles wouldn't meet WP:N for an academic or journalist. So, I disagree with you as I don't see how he meets WP:AUTHOR--there's no evidence he's "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" (three cites in JAMA were mentioned). For books, he seems to have co-authored several books of no clear notability. He may be working on things, but is he notable--has he been noted? JJL (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure what you expect of a notable martial arts scholar: could you give me an example of a wiki article about a notable martial arts scholar? jmcw (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was referring to the articles there. But I notice both of the Tuttle books are co-authored and the one in the popular series doesn't rank in the top 6 million at Amazon. I think you're lowering the WP:AUTHOR standards for our field of interest, and I don't think that's the intent of that guideline. JJL (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be pleasing to me but I think it will take some time before we develop guidelines. There are not too many active people currently in Wiki MA - no one is rushing to make comments. jmcw (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2009 (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 a7, band with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kidofdoom

edit
Kidofdoom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band; requested speedy; original poster removed csd mhking (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2009 (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. JForget 00:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murray D. Martin

edit
Murray D. Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The latest in a series of CEO listings entries. Notable only for being a CEO, therefore not notable enough for a separate entry. Hairhorn (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Clearly, consensus is against the nomination here, which is fine. My motivation for this AfD was that this person has no notability beyond their connection to the company they're leading, therefore, they don't merit their own entry, since there is already an entry for the company itself. This is - as far as I can tell - a principle of notability that is applied in other areas around here. Hairhorn (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2009 (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 all. Every last bit of this crap speedied by myself and various other admins as blatant hoaxes. Author blocked by Friday as a vandal-only account. Blueboy96 22:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United states presidential election in Kentucky 1960

edit
United states presidential election in Kentucky 1960 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No references, and percentage's don't add up. And the author has changed the percentages a few times. --Abc518 (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding near identical pages from same editor:

United states presidential election in Virginia 1960 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
United states presidential election in North Carolina 1960 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both were up for speedy as misnomer redirects... but I created the redirects to get rid of the articles, so they should have been reverted rather than speedied. Hairhorn (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The Kentucky article is atrociously bad. For example, the author cites Kennedy's victory in Kentucky as notable, due to Kentucky being a heavily Republican state with respect to Presidential elections. However, Kentucky's history as a Republican-leaning state doesn't really start until the Reagan era; Kentucky went Democratic in nearly every Presidential election from 1856-1956, so Kennedy's victory in Kentucky was something of a given, and hardly a surprise. I could quite easily improve this article a great deal...but do we really need an article about the 1960 Presidential election in Kentucky? Why? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Read it more carefully. Kennedy lost in Kentucky, per the article. Are the state by state results available in some other article? They seem important enough, for each state, to be tabulated in one article per election. The results in each state had substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blast them off. Plus all the similar stubs by user:Jet Blaster5000. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete All Author has a history of disruptive editing. These articles don't have a chance. Jujutacular talkcontribs 21:57, 3 August 2009 (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. Consensus here indicates that the topic is sufficiently notable to justify inclusion. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malta–Portugal relations

edit
Malta–Portugal relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

simply having embassies or being members of the EU does not grant automatic notability. I've checked the first 70 results of this gnews search and almost all is multilateral. the fact they played a football match last year does not add to notability. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which section? LibStar (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that is to say, handle via the Foreign Relations of X precedent, as in the entries listed under "See Also" in the article. JJL (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Inadequately researched nomination. Malta and Portugal bilateral relations exist and are verifiable, through bilateral agrements,[68] diplomatic trade ties, [69], presidential visits [70], and international business cooperation [71]. Of course, they also have embassies in each others' countries and historic relations these two countries are substantial. For example, "(o)n 19 September 1798, two weeks after the popular revolt against the French, the Portuguese fleet in the Mediterranean came to the relief of Malta. It was under the command of Admiral Domingos Xavier de Lima Pinto Guedes (1765- 1802), 7th Marquis de Nisa, who blockaded and laid siege to the French, and landed a contingent to help the Maltese patriots. The Portuguese admiral gave the Maltese 500 muskets while two of his officers came ashore to advise them on the best location for their trenches and posts facing Valletta and Cottonera." [72]--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cdogsimmons. They are both coastal European nations. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 18:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
when has "coastal European nations" become a criterion for notability? LibStar (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
since people with a basic knowledge of European history realised that Portugal was a major naval power for many centuries and that Malta commanded the sea route from Portugal to the eastern Mediterranean. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Harp

edit
Wood Harp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

"Production errors". "Low budget, low-quality production and inexperienced acting". "One of Thomas Rewick's lesser films." So what makes you think it is notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:36, 3 August 2009 (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/Redirect (non admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Town Centre Project Area Committee

edit
Town Centre Project Area Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. PROD was removed with the reason that the incoming links somehow make this a notable concept, despite the lack of reliable sources discussing this type of organization. While such committees certainly do exist, there do not seem to be any sources upon which to base an article, as evidenced by the fact that this has been a one-line stub for more than three years. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Works for me, and with an endorsement by the article's creator, I think we can close this one up. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Destination matters

edit
Destination matters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Insufficient evidence of notability for inclusion. Only references appear to be Amazon.com and the production's own site. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 01:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I disagree that this article should be deleted. It is clearly reference material to a short film being released on Amazon.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shodanproductions (talk • contribs)

— Shodanproductions (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:35, August 3, 2009 (UTC).

Shodanproductions (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a violation of the username policy (promotional username.) Vicenarian (Said · Done) 01:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Blt8472 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Sources from the production's own site are generally not enough to establish notability. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 01:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and there have been many, many imdb pages for many, many films that have either never been made (as they don't get out of pre-production) or are not notable (we are not the imdb, so the low bar they set is not the bar we have). Darrenhusted (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or hoaxes that never get removed. Joe Chill (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We believe you. That isn't in any way, shape or form pertinent. No one is claiming that this film doesn't exist. We just state that it fails to meet any of the criteria set forth in WP:FILM for notability.  Ravenswing  21:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindred spirit

edit
Kindred spirit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

DELETE This is a dictionary definition through and through, and always will be. JBsupreme (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Debating Union

edit
Nottingham Debating Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article prodded in April because "Non notable student society, fails WP:N. No Google news hits, only 13 distinct Google hits." Prod contested with comment at Talk:Nottingham Debating Union but without any improvements since. Google hits[73], no Google News hits[74]. Fram (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2009 (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. (X! · talk)  · @925  ·  21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shane O'Connor (soccer)

edit
Shane O'Connor (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural listing after prod removed. Fails WP:ATHLETE. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2009 (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 WTPT. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Guys

edit
AfDs for this article:
Rise Guys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a non-notable group of radio jocks. It appears to have been started as promotional material for the radio station. Harry Angstrom (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to WTPT, if you remove all the promotional stuff from this article it would be possible to merge what is left to the radio station's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtis (talk • contribs) 17:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a bad idea, but a lot of the razz-ma-tazz should be trimmed. --Harry Angstrom (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be much response to this. If no one objects, I'll withdraw this proposal and just merge the article. --Harry Angstrom (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes these things are a little slow, but if you want to withdraw and merge it, since that is the way it seems to be going anyway, please feel free. I have removed some of the text on the page because I wasn't sure if it was vandalism or not (you can see what was removed in history of course) and played it on the safe side and removed it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:25, 9 August 2009 (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Pipa

edit
Joseph Pipa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Short, unsourced stub, giving no indication of meeting WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. {{find}} reveals no indication of "significant coverage in reliable sources", just the occasional citation, passing mention or quotation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timen cruz

edit
Timen cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Long article which implies notability, but few g-hits. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayham Barghuthi

edit
Ayham Barghuthi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are claims of notability, but the sources do not come close to verifying. Either they are not reliable sources, or the content does not contain any info about the subject. Further google searches show virtually no information about subject (all content scraped from this article), no results for subject in google news. Google also offers very little about the company, IAM.

Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 3 people working on this article, it seems no one looks at the talk or discussion pages of the articles anymore these days.

Google gives results on IAM INC not IAM. You also get more information by searchig officialiam.

Your name is Omar so I am safe to assume you speak arabic, unless you are from a non arab speaking muslim country. THe point of this is that if you search in arabic you are better off with the results.

I am wih you on that some sources are unlclear or don't point directly to the point mentioned, yet I am working with the guys on fixing this as I have found better and more reliable sources and I am in touch with the person doing the re-write yet I refused to let them publish it due to minor inaccurcies such as networth which they state as 46-7 which is incorrect as this is the worth of the corporation not the person.

I hereby request the page is removed from deletion, given a deadline of 1 month for readjustment and then re-evaluated. — 132.205.243.77 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20-Mule-Team Delete: Let's examine. The first source in the article (from the Jordanian government) doesn't mention Barghuthi. The second source leads to a search tab from which Barghuthi doesn't show up. And so on and so forth ... the sources given either aren't reliable (about half of them are from the corporation Barghuthi purportedly runs) and none of them mention his name. The website for this IAM INC hasn't been updated in a year, and since it claims to have a Boston office, being a Boston local, I did a look up on the number. According to whitepages.com the Boston number is in fact an unpublished cell phone number. So are the numbers for its New York and Los Angeles "offices," although the unpublished number for its Montreal "office" is at least a landline; all very peculiar for a corporation purportedly involved in public relations. Finally, as far as the "three" people working on the article goes, I see one SPA, beyond a second SPA whose three Wikipedia edits are in this article. Frankly, given the inflated claims of the article backed with a complete lack of reliable sources, I suspect hoax, if a very energetic one. In any event, I have no problem with the creator/s reinstating a deleted article if they come up with actual reliable proof of those claims.  Ravenswing  09:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has not been improved by these three (?) accounts in the last half year. All they could do was defending its current shape by deleting templates, placing a bogus protection notice, replacing one irrelevant link by another, and so on. I have no hope one more month would change it. --Pgallert (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with deleting this as I am the one who originally wrote the article. If you examine the links properly it is well clear that because the links are old, they seem to have been deleted by the host. I think a site that gives older versions of the webpage could be useful in showing that the information was indeed there.

If it was a hoax as one claims, I would have made sure the links are always up to par no. I also do not know what template changes and all the things you cliam are. As for the numbers, the address is in Canada hence it is a Canadian company. A simple and proper search could tell you that. I smarter move would be going to the "company registrar of quebec" and searching the company.

If the address is a Canadian address and a company has US numbers for US clients, they are possibly virtual numbers which direct the call to the HQ. Try calling one. I have no idea on the results of your white pages.

I have never seen a corporate site write the name of its staff on its website, that would be a bit odd I guess. Yet IAM Inc and its founder are pretty well known here and in Jordan. There are a few videos I have found that tell a lot yet I never knew if they are a source that can be link as I am very new to wikipedia, this was indeed my first article.

I agree with the person with no signature, I would remove this from deletion and give me time to re-locate links and other sources that would enhance on this article. Otherwise I would request a speedy deletion until I do it myself and repost it as a new article.

Mindtofind (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC). — Mindtofind (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Strong Delete the company has a red link, so the company isn't notable. The article is missing cites, and the cites it does have don't seem to match with the article. The article can always be recreated when notability and sources are provided. TheWeakWilled 02:39, 5 August 2009 (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 Custody battle for Anna Mae He. JForget 00:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He Shaoqiang

edit
AfDs for this article:
He Shaoqiang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only notable for one event. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2009 (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 (G11) by Nihiltres. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6rounds

edit
6rounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn website Amocool (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - A pair of third-party articles in EL suggests notability. Needs improvements to referencing and possibly stubbification to remove advert-like vanity cruft -- but the company itself passes muster for inclusion here. --EEMIV (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2009 (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. JamieS93 be kind to newcomers 18:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Pérez de Ovando, 1st Count of Ciudad Rodrigo

edit
Rodrigo Pérez de Ovando, 1st Count of Ciudad Rodrigo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am questioning the notability of this article, I would like some input.. SparksBoy (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't know if it's a hoax or not, and it wouldn't be easy to ask the creator, who's currently serving a one-year ArbCom ban for myriad violations. This article does rest upon a single source, unavailable for verification to most (if not all) editors, isn't of a nature likely to be improved and seems a bit of a walled garden with Pedro Fernández de Ovando and Hernán Pérez de Ovando, also created by the same editor. I'm not prejudiced against recreation if verifiable sources turn up, but lacking them, they should all get the axe.  RGTraynor  09:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Kalupa

edit
Taylor Kalupa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

contested prod, has future potential of notability but seems to fail WP:ENTERTAINER in it's current state. Additionally, appears to be a promotional semi-spam article by the original creator. Falcon8765 (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, there is potential for future notability but at present not enough to meet notability requirements; no prejudice against future recreation should notability accrue. I've recently seen the appearance on Blush and it doesn't add any notability at all; to my recollection, she doesn't speak and is not a contestant, just the subject of a competition by contestants. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2009 (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 a clear consensus for delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yardsaledb

edit
Yardsaledb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn website Amocool (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Data & Network Solutions

edit
AfDs for this article:
Advanced Data & Network Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG. Lack of significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject, prod was declined by IP author. RayTalk 20:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2009 (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Moores

edit
Simon Moores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has remained mostly autobiographical and as such seems to me to be a candidate for deletion. I am open to correction from other editors but it seems the correct action to take. Lord Matt (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. The keep votes did not address the notability concerns. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wild About It (Natalie Imbruglia song)

edit
Wild About It (Natalie Imbruglia song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

contested prod removed without significant improvement. Fails WP:NSONGS, lacks references to reliable 3rd party sources ( web forums are not reliable souces, Twitter is a primary source). This may be notable one day but not today, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball RadioFan (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GetPlus Transfer Manager

edit
GetPlus Transfer Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no independent sources of discussion in the first two pages of google hits. Company that publishes the software has no article. See brief background discussion at User_talk:Tnxman307#let.27s_delete_GetPlus_Transfer_Manager Petershank (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2009 (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.
  1. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=LoQo50YPzTUC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=soviet+union+definition+of+genocide&source=bl&ots=NLamTIqdqA&sig=3MES2CtZuF4Gc4lma1AtyBrrtZ0&hl=en&ei=joB8SqS0CpX8tgeX8YDdAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
  2. ^ George Leggett. The Cheka: Lenin's Political Police Oxford University Press, 1986. ISBN 0198228627 page 114
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_3&oldid=1234122044"