Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 23 July 25 July >

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 List_of_bus_routes_in_Eastleigh_&_Romsey. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Eastleigh[edit]

List of bus routes in Eastleigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a place for travel guides - that is what Wikitravel is for. Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my nomination for those who may not have read the specific guidance in WP:NOTDIR - WP:NOTGUIDE states that travel guide content belongs at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a revised List of bus routes in Hampshire, a county-wide article to match with all of the other List of bus routes in England. Arriva436talk/contribs 12:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Military career of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. A merge seems the best solution, primarily to Military career of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk but possibly some of it to other articles also. I see nothingreally wrong with the resulting redirect. under the present title, buit it can be discussed further at RfD after the merge. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's leadership of the independence war[edit]

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

Takabeg (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 07:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 07:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meme Molly[edit]

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

This is a borderline case. I agree that Meme Molly certainly merits a mention and section in the main Rocketboom article - however, I don't believe her notability independent of her activities with Rocketboom merits a standalone article. A previous redirect to Rocketboom was reverted after two weeks with a rather weak rationale, and considering the article talk page has been dead since December, I don't think a discussion there would prove very fruitful. As I said elsewhere, this article reads like a Teen People bio, and I think that's indicative of the fact that beyond her position as a host of a popular vlog, there simply isn't much notability going on here. Badger Drink (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see a problem with WP:N here? I see that you don't mention a conflict with WP:N either, just that in your opinion it's better to delete it... --DeVerm (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Also don't see WP:N issues here. Her YouTube channel was ranked among the top 10 in the UK and now she hosts one of the oldest web shows still running. --Jamiew (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solas nua[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the GNG. Also significant conflict of interest with creator listed as "social media manager" on given external link - the tone is bad. Raymie (t • c) 06:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have given the article a serious going-over and removed 90% of the puffery that was there, together with adding links and corrections. What is left is brief but I would consider this an established and notable arts organisation - there are quite a number of hits on an internet search. asnac (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage in WaPo, productions reviewed in NYT, won DC Mayor's Arts Award 86.44.35.99 (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • IP editor is new and has only contributed to the article and this debate. Raymie (t • c) 04:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG on the basis of the Irish Times and NPR coverage. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ultimately nobody is really convinced of the subject's notability.  Sandstein  05:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Pallett[edit]

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

He is a constable's officer which is the lowest rank of the elected police on Jersey. He is a football coach, he has failed twice to be elected to an obscure States Assembly of Jersey. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN and Wikipedia:Notability unless I am missing something? TeapotgeorgeTalk 16:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - Not unless such issues are more notable on a small island than they are from larger perspectives. I thought about nominating myself but decided to give him a run for his money as I didn't know enough about Jersey to decide either way. Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've changed the infobox to indicate that he is a Centenier, which is the highest rank of the honorary police (per our article). I can see from a source that he is (or was) a Centenier. I used the beginining date from the article (2008), although that's not sourced. I used 2011 as the ending date only because our article says the term is 3 years, but I'm really not sure what's accurate. In any event, the question now becomes whether a Centenier is inherently notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting comments, but I'd still lean toward Delete, per nom. Notability on the island (which is itself still not entirely certain) might be comparable to notability as an alderman in a large community. Big fish in a small pond shouldn't alter the interpretation of notability guidelines. 99.0.82.226 (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - looking at it, a Centenier seems quite noteworthy in Jersy. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They're volunteers, bless 'em. Here's a BBC story about them [1], and more about their duties from the Citizen Advice Bureau of Jersey [2]. Whatever honors they're due, they don't appear to satisfy Wiki guidelines for notability. 99.0.82.226 (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the first cite. I've added it to the article. I'm still unclear about when he was actually elected. The article says 2008, but I can't find a source for that. Plus, the so-called administration page for the parish seems to indicate that he may have been elected in 2010, but they don't explain what the date next to his name means, so I'm not sure.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • - they are elected - from our article - A Centenier is a senior member of the Honorary Police of Jersey. Centeniers are elected for a mandate of 3 years at a public election within the Parish. - perhaps upaid but as a wiki editor you gotta respect that.Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do respect it personally. But as a Wikipedia editor I don't think it's a particularly noteworthy position. That aside, the bigger question is whether he's received substantial coverage in any capacity. All I can find is passing mention in several articles; my take is that the local press doesn't cover the election of a centenier as a major event. 99.0.82.226 (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am a Jersey resident, and I would support deletion on the basis that he is not a notable individual within the island. As has previously been stated, being a local official, or a failed electoral candidate doesn't make a person notable. I think the existence of this article is more about self-promotion of a wannabe politician. His past chairmanship of the Jersey Democratic Alliance is noted on that page. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment. I think this one could use just a little more input. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jersey Democratic Alliance and delete history. I was hoping for discussion on whether or not the subject passes WP:GNG but that didn't happen. However, the conflict of interest here is obvious. If a neutral editor wishes to write a balanced neutral article and can demonstrate notability, then he should be allowed to do so. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'll speak to notability if no one minds. I'll not make any claim to know Jersey, or Jersey politicians. But I've looked at the sources presented, and I did a bit of digging around myself. 1:33 in the half marathon? I've never done that. He seems like a pretty impressive individual. Now WP:POLITICIAN exists to help us to make presumption reasonable sources could be found, the section referring itself back to the significance of GNG. That section makes it clear that not meeting WP:POLITICIAN is no obstruction to meeting general notability. So the questions become: Significant coverage? By multiple independent sources? Should be simple...
    • Significant Coverage? By what standard. Certainly by quantity, there's a fair amount of Jersey.com and BBC sources which mention or quote him. By quality, not so much. No detailed interviews, no profiles, no bios. Nothing directly detailing.
    • By multiple independent sources? Sure. Nobody's going to complain about the two sources I've listed, are they? Two actual journalistic enterprises. Probably more offline sources exist.
      • My conclusion: since we're not impressed with the sources we've found, what sources can be presumed to exist? Now we're back to WP:POLITICIAN. Could we reasonably expect to find sources if we looked more closely? WP:POLITICIAN allows us to presume not. BTW, the target article Ron suggests was written by the same (now dormant) editor. So was the article of the current head of the party. And the article on the opposition party. User:RichardColgate got around. BusterD (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock (pipe)[edit]

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

No sources, no indication of notability, no improvement for several years. Orphan article. As far as I can tell, this article isn't encyclopedic, and no one cares enough to attempt to fix it. It should have been speedied, it should have been prodded, but here we are just the same. Rklawton (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Smoking pipe (tobacco)#Calabash. As can be seen here, this is a genuine name for a pipe and this would be useful redirect to a helpful description. TerriersFan (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be OK if we had evidence that a calabash was also known as a Sherlock. At this point, we have no such evidence. Rklawton (talk) 03:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Stuff I made Up One Day. Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources at all. The Google search result referred to above talks about a "Sherlock pipe", but I didn't see anything (other than the existing material from Wikipedia) using "Sherlock" all by itself to refer to this pipe. If (and only if) this use of "Sherlock" can be substantiated via independent reliable sources, then I would redirect as suggested above. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Markler[edit]

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

Non-notable software company/software program. There are two provided links in the article that might meet WP:N requirements: ref 1 is a broken link to the Apple online store and ref 3 is a local news piece[3] that states the software program was used in a whopping "22 offices" (story from 2007). Searches fro further coverage reveal only trivial mentions e.g., [4]). — Scientizzle 21:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC) — Scientizzle 21:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —— Scientizzle 19:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —— Scientizzle 19:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no significant coverage, --Nuujinn (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Warren[edit]

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

Warren is the "Honorary Consul of the Principality of Monaco to Nevada, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming". No other reason given. Not exactly sure that Honorary Consuls are notable. Certainly doesn't pass WP:DIPLOMAT. Note, same editor has been adding articles for the entire Warren family. Other members have at least a claim to nobility. Bgwhite (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notable mentions. When I typed the name in both Google and Yahoo, I couldn't find one mention aside from other people named Jonathan Warren as well. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no consensus asbout whether the coverage is sufficiently in-depth, so the article is kept by default.  Sandstein  06:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CTERA Networks[edit]

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

Article was already deleted once (with speedy close) as a "Wikivertisement for non-notable company that fails to even assert notability". The article is still an WP:ADVERT that fails to assert WP:NOTABILITY, but it also has WP:NPOV and potentially WP:COI problems — it's essentially a WP:PUFF piece and product catalog that would require a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. Hence I propose we:

  • Delete and salt given we've been here before. -- samj inout 20:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a laundry list of policies. Despite being asked multiple times on the talk page, you have not given any example of where the article violates WP:NPOV. The accusations are baseless and unfair, please try to WP:AGF. Marokwitz (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article deleted in 2009 was a different one. Definitely not a valid deletion reason. The company meets and exceeds Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. There is ample significant coverage of the company reliable, independent secondary sources in the IT area, as evidenced by the sources cited by the article. It should take an incredible amount of twisting in order to claim the vast majority of these are not reliable, independent secondary sources covering the company in a major way. Marokwitz (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Published Book) Cloud Computing Bible, by Barrie Sosinsky, John Wiley and Sons, p. 462-464
    • (Top-tier Newspaper) Ctera Networks CloudPlug: Network Storage Sharing Device Offers Backup, Too: Washington Post
Washington Post article states Ctera's online storage is "a bit pricey in view of alternatives...." Also states, "Likewise, the CloudPlug itself is a bit expensive compared to similar devices." Although the article is a review of CloudPlug, it recommends the competing PogoPlug and Seagate's FreeAgent to ordinary users. Glrx (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Being criticized by the Washington Post doesn't reduce notability. Marokwitz (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Tech Magazine) CTERA’s CloudPlug takes a hybrid approach to storage: VentureBeat
    • (Tech Magazine) CTERA C200 Is What Cloud IT Should Be: CRN
    • (Analyst Group) CTERA company Profile: IDC Group
    • (Finance Magazine) CTERA company Profile: Bloomberg BusinessWeek
    • (Tech Magazine) "Ctera Drives Hybrid Approach to Backup": CTOEdge
    • (Analyst Group) CTERA's Cloud Attached Storage Adds File Sharing to Cloud Backup: Storage Switzerland
    • (Tech Magazine) Ctera Expands, Enhances Cloud Storage Capabilities: Network Computing
    • (Tech Magazine) CTERA Rolls Out Channel-Friendly Cloud Storage Portal: Channel Insider
    • (Tech Magazine) CTERA Intros Hybrid Local-Cloud Storage Appliance: CRN
    • (Analyst Group) Data Protection and Recovery in the Small and Mid-sized Business (SMB): Storage Strategies NOW
    • (Linux Magazine) CloudPlug Wall Wart Backs Up Linux: Local Backup, Offsite Backup: Linux Planet
    • (Tech Magazine) CTERA C200 Reviewed: SmallNetBuilder
    • (Tech Magazine) CTERA Links Cloud Storage With Data Protection. Network Computing.
    • (Tech Magazine) CTERA brings the cloud down scale. Network World.
    • (Tech Magazine) CTERA Extends Hybrid Cloud Storage Offering. InformationWeek.
Daniel Dern's September 22, 2010 InformationWeek article for comparison to
Ctera's September 21, 2010 press release. Bulleted points the same; there is no independent research here. Glrx (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's strike out that one. Marokwitz (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Tech Magazine) CTERA launches portal, upgrades its CloudPlug. ZDNet.
    • (Tech Magazine) Ctera Adds Cloud Management Platform. Network Computing
    • (Tech Magazine) CTERA Launches Appliance-Integrated Cloud Platform. MSP Mentor.
    • (Linux Magazine) "The Next3 filesystem". LWN.
    • (Tech Magazine)"CTERA Adds Data Protection to Linux File Systems". ESG.

** (Tech Magazine) CTERA Adds Bare Metal and Server Backup to Hybrid Cloud: ESG

ESG's September 22, 2010 article uses the same "bare metal and server backup" in its title as Ctera's September 21, 2010 press release. The article has cribbed from the press release (eg, new version 2.5; C400). Where it's gone outside the press release, it has quoted CTERA's VP of marketing. The article is not independent research; it says what the company offers; it does not evaluate those products. Glrx (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a prominent and independent RS decides to cover a press release in its own words, then this is still a secondary source, and good indicator of notability. But Ok, let's strike out this one too. There are plenty of good sources remaining in the list to demonstrate notability. Marokwitz (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As discussed on the article's talk page, the supplied references usually read like they were cribbed from press releases (losing independence) or they only give passing mention to CTERA. Many titles indicate product announcements, and the company would be the source of those announcements. The articles do not qualify as "significant coverage". The list above is more about quantity rather than quality. The two pages in the book do not evaluate the company's products. The list excludes the previous touted Datamation article that only mentioned CTERA in passing and implied that it had fewer than 700 customers (the article is a year old). That suggests CTERA holds a small portion of the market (and it targets SOHO); even the title is iffy at "poised to save". We have no concrete measures of acceptance. The company's website does not identity major customers. Even the company's website speaks more in potential than actual achievement:
Managed storage solutions are the next big revenue opportunity for service providers. CTERA has designed its technology from the ground up to cater to the operational needs of service providers, and is actively partnering with leading ISPs, MSPs and resellers to deliver managed storage and online backup services. CTERA provides them with the CTERA Portal, a cloud services platform that enables service providers and IT resellers to quickly deliver cloud storage, hybrid local/off-site backup and data protection as managed services to their customers.[5]
The next3 filesystem is based on and compatible with ext3; a significant developer of ext3 claims ext3 is stopgap and suggests going a different route.
What statements make this company notable?
The company has "won" some awards, but how meritorious are those awards? Being in the top 100 could include a lot of also-rans.
The company is not yet notable. It does not have the depth of coverage in wide sources. The coverage is shallow and in limited sources. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria.
Glrx (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly N and PUFF are not relevant because of the extensive references to RS in the article. Just because this is not Intel which is known to end customers does not mean that it is not significant. B2B companies are not less important or N than retailers. --Shuki (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete albeit weak. It seems still a puff piece right now. Worse is being full of neologisms and jargon. Cloud...cloud...cloud...cloud...cloud Just saying "cloud" often enough does not make it notable, just because everyone else also says the trendy word. Their marcom folks are certainly doing their job with the advertorials. As I recall, you buy the writers lunch and they write an article; some drinks and desert and you get a positive one. There indeed is quite a bit of coverage, and some might be as close to "reliable" as it gets in this industry. But generally it takes more than a couple years to become really notable after a product comes out, even in the quick-moving tech industry. The rack-mount box at least looks very generic. If article stays, much of the promotional text would need to go, leaving it with not much more than a list of products. If they go public or sign some more widely-covered deals could very well be notable some day, but not quite yet I would say. Move to user space and try again if the company is still around later. W Nowicki (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Marokwitz' comments and the massive media coverage the company received in major tech magazines. Hmbr (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've read thoroughly this thread, and I am very much convinced that this topic has the required importance level. To be more specific, I think the remarks made by Marokwitz point to sufficient evidence relating to the encyclopedic value of this article, and at the end of the day, this is what it's all about... E.Rattner2 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The subject may well be notable, but the article (which doubles as an advert/brochure/product catalog) fails to assert this or explain why. Furthermore, many of the sources are self published, not relevant, light or passing references, etc. In its current for it's an advert, not an encyclopedic article, so it should at least be stubbed. -- samj inout 14:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, first I agree that almost 'every' article could be improved -- to be more precise, if you wish, you can edit and improve this article yourself. However, I don't see how relevancy or needing to edit this one actually make a case for deletion! If we focus on the subject at hand, it seems even you think it is worth keeping, right...? Rattner2 (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The subject may well be notable, but the article fails to assert this or explain why" - that's a fair point, and I'll try to improve the article to show this more clearly, hopefully with help of other editors. But it is not a reason for deletion. I remind you that according to WP:CORP, "Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even organizations that editors personally believe are "important" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. So, basically, for the purpose of this deletion discussion, we are mainly required to demonstrate that the company has attracted notice, which the list of sources above, is sufficient to confirm. Marokwitz (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no reason to delete this article, instead of trying to delete well written articles I suggest you to contribute to Wikipedia by making new ones...--Someone35 (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh?? Are we talking about the same article? This one is mostly marketing buzzwords that mean very little to most encylopedia readers. Very far from "well written". From the article I have no clue if the company develops hardware, software, provides services, or what. Cannot tell if anyone ever bought one of their products. We are not bad-mouthing the company: it is typical of small private companies to be vague in their early stages, and only time will tell if they really make a notable impact. And many of us do not think lack of new articles is a problem with wikipedia; on the contrary, time spent policing the flood of badly-writen new articles (many much worse than this one even) would be much better spent bringing the ones on truly encyclopedic subjects up in quality. W Nowicki (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the article? It is very clear that the company does develop hardware and software.Marokwitz (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If you read the source you'd see this is not a trivial appearance in the list of similar companies. The source provides In depth coverage of the company's solution and reflects on setup and Web UI and other details. The source notes about Capabilities not found in most competing devices and concludes with a great product for more-advanced users..
  2. Washington Post provides a wide general audience.
  3. Jon L. Jacobi appears independent of CTERA, reporting for PC World, specifically.
Those three might appear as characteristics of primary criteria AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another such example of an in depth review is "CTERA C200 Reviewed" by Timm Higgins of SmallNetBuilder. [6]. See detailed comment below. Marokwitz (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article satisfies both WP:N and WP:V. I do not see WP:ADVERT, WP:COI, nor WP:NPOV problems. I note that the use of a word like "cloud" is not a reason to delete an article. The unwillingness to verify/judge the list of sources provided in the article, article talk and above, is an additional sign that it includes enough WP:RS to satisfy requirements. The argument that it is not sure what the company does or makes or sells after reading the article, is clearly not true for the average reader as it even includes lists of products (hardware and software). Also, a speedy close (is that a delete?) in the past is no valid reason for delete today. The company can have grown and become notable since then, so the suggestion that a speedy close 2.5 years ago hold any value in favour of deletion today is not valid. There is simply not a WP:DEL#REASON for this article that I see. --DeVerm (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
You're twisting the argument: claiming "cloud" is not an argument to delete the article; its that claiming "cloud" or other buzzwords does not automatically confer WP:N. I have gone through most of the sources in the above list, and I do not see redeeming value in them. If I have time, I will explicitly criticize some more of them, but many on their face are just product announcements. CTERA apparently does not have many customers or significant customers. One article suggests that CTERA has fewer than 700 customers; some competitors claim more than 50,000 customers. I am not asking for wishful thinking (the company may have grown in 2.5 years); I am asking for some proof that the company has done something significant other raise some money, file some incorporation papers, and have an over-achieving PR department that can get some ink in some narrow trade publications when it also buys some advertising. The Washington Post article indicates that CTERA is an also-ran because the product is too complicated and too expensive for the average customer. Selling a poor product or a poorly matched product is not notable. WP:N is not just a list of sources, but some sources that actually evaluate the impact that a company has had on the market or the technology. Bringing a product to market is an accomplishment, but that does not make the accomplishment notable. Where are those sources? Glrx (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So basically you're saying that the word "cloud" is irrelevant. I agree, but you should say that to the person bringing it up as an argument instead of me who merely questions it in much the same way you do. You are mistaken that a number of customers is a grade of notability. Same for price of product. There are many notable companies selling very expensive products to very few customers. This, in fact, is part of what makes them notable. Rolls Royce sells much less cars than Volkswagen asking much more money for their product, but that does not make them any less notable. Those points raised by you are irrelevant to deciding about deletion of this article. You continue to state that the article is about a poor product or a poorly matched product. That sounds like WP:OR to me so I ask you to strike or cite that. On Notability you question the impact this company has had, but in doing so, you completely ignore the fact that to create their products, they developed a journaled filesystem which they released to the public domain and which can be found in WP as next3. There you have a perfect example of impact. Lastly you ask for sources but just before that you explain you don't have time to check the sources listed... which should have been done by anybody declaring violation of WP:N or WP:V --DeVerm (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Furthermore, Glrx, your arguments not only irrelevant to WP:N, they are factually false. No article stated that the company has fewer than 700 customers. You have misread a source completely, which was talking about another company. In fact this press release [7] states their "technology has been deployed in thousands of sites". And the Washington Post article did not conclude it is a "poor product", quite the opposite, the conclusion was "I enjoyed my time with the CloudPlug, and it's a great product for more-advanced users", only too expensive for average consumers (which is obvious since the company targets the business market). Not to mention, that the above press release about the Cloud Backup Vendor Landscape reports that CTERA has earned "the highest value score among the evaluated vendors". Marokwitz (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note, also, that according to WP:CORP, "smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." Marokwitz (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never said using the word cloud was grounds for deletion, sorry if you got that mistaken impression. Just that the buzzwords obscured most information from the article. I said it should be deleted because it does not show that the company is notable enough with true independent sources. And just echoing that the company makes a product called a "C800" (from the picture looks like the stnadard OEM box from Intel or Dell?) does not explain to me what the contribution was. Now if CTERA indeed developed Next3 then the article should say so (with a source, a quick look seems to indicate some). The article on Next3 has it only in the infobox, not in the body. If some of the keepers worked on making the article more encyclopedic it would have a much better chance of staying around. Maybe the justification is there, but repeating buzzwords is not going to help. W Nowicki (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nowicky, what I read in your Delete !vote is the word "cloud" and stories about companies buying writers lunch and drinks and deserts in order to get positive press. My question is: if that all is not targeted at CTERA then why do you write it here? You claim it's so commercial in style but then you say their development of next3 is not brought forward prominent enough. But I see a section "2 - Products" in the article which clearly lists next3 and has references too (not even needed when they are in the next3 article that is linked I think). OEM boxes: HP sells OEM boxes too. What makes these boxes notable is the software inside. You state that only a rewrite can save the article but I don't see errors in style listed as reasons for deletion. --DeVerm (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Nowicky, the company did develop Next3. The article now clarifies this. I agree that repeating buzzwords is not going to help, that's a fair point. The article should be improved. The problem is that the reliable sources covering the company use the buzzword "cloud" quite frequently, and we generally try to stick to what reliable sources say. Regarding the idea that reliable sources are not actually reliable, that's an absurd claim. We are required to ensure that the details in the article are verifiable, and there is no reason for us to doubt the intentions of well known analyst groups and technology journalists. Marokwitz (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is about a company that has received enough media attention and reviews in global professional publications to establish notability. I was surprised to see it on the deletion list. There is something fishy about why the nominator, someone who is so interested in cloud computing, wants it gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoodinsky (talk • contribs) 12:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
(UTC)

Comment I initially closed this as delete, but it's been suggested that I re-list it with some notes to the participants. This is an unusual step, but I'm going to do it, there's no harm in more talking.
I initially closed this as delete, and when queried I made some notes at User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman#Scratch that, upon reconsideration, left me certain I had closed correctly. To date, the arguments presented for deletion are more closely aligned with the policies and guidelines that they have referenced. I won't reclose this now that I've contributed, but I'd suggest that in order to avoid deletion by the next admin, they need to adress the issue of the sources provided are significant coverage. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After reading Aaron's talk page I understand what went wrong: I and I guess others too, have been under the impression that the list of sources brought forward by Marokwitz above, clearly demonstrates compliance with WP:N and WP:V. My reasoning for that is that only 3 of them have been negatively commented upon, of which 1 seems a weak comment. For me and others, it shows that there's still a significant stack of solid sources to back the article. Clearly, this is not how it is interpreted by Aaron and others. The side tracking occurred as a result of experience in other AfD's where invalid arguments that were left unchallenged, counted in the interpretation that resulted in Delete of the article. I'm very happy to see that Aaron looks straight through that.
I picked one source for review: #5 in the reflist, [[8]] which is a review done by CRN and reported by Edward F. Moltzen. After reading the article, one can only accept that they actually put the product through a physical test on which they report that it has passed with flying colors. The editor explains that the product is not for the mass consumer market but "simply makes very good sense for small or mid-sized businesses, or workgroups". Their conclusion: "Ctera's technology and service are elegant, easy and fast to deploy, flexible and cost-effective." I include these quotes to show that points raised by others above are not shared by the experts involved in this article. The source itself is clearly an in-depth, independent one, that conforms to the guidelines as listed in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and indeed to the primary criteria as listed and explained in that document. --DeVerm (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Another such example that I picked to review is the SmallNetBuilder review of C200 by Tim Higgins [9]. If you read the source you'd see this is not a trivial appearance - the source provides In depth coverage (3 pages) of the company's solution and reflects on setup and went as far as actually disassembling the hardware, and analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of the product and the company strategy. This level of attention extends well beyond "merely trivial coverage". Timm Higgins is Managing Editor & CEO of SmallNetBuilder, a tech news publication which appears to be independent of CTERA. This source conforms to the guidelines as listed in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and specifically to the primary criteria as listed and explained in that document. Marokwitz (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another such example that I picked to review is the LinuxPlanet hands on review of CloudPlug by Paul Ferill. The review is 2 pages long, goes through the setup of the device and the various features and GUI screens. The article mentions CTERA NEXT3, the open source file system by CTERA with support for volume snapshots, and concludes that the product "really does pack a lot of capability into a tiny device" and that it "offers a great solution". This level of attention extends well beyond "merely trivial coverage". According to his bio, Paul Ferill has been writing in the computer trade press for more than 20 years. I assume he is not connected to CTERA. Marokwitz (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For clarity of the closing admin this comment was added after the "relisted" banner chronologically. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Marokwitz makes a convincing case. The coverage is extensive, and therefore added together proves notability. It doesn't matter if there isn't much to say. They are notable because everyone is saying it. Dream Focus 01:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Chalobah[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Favonian (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Holdings[edit]

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

This nomination also includes the following closely related articles:

Knight Communications, LTD (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Knight Communications, Inc (USA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The sourcing for these articles consists of a single trivial mention on a member of Parliament's web site, along with incorporation records. None of these sources come close to meeting the general notability guideline. I was not able to find any coverage of this company or its subsidiaries at all on a GNews search, so it appears unlikely that they have received significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. These articles have significant conflict of interest issues as well, and Knight Communications was recently deleted as spam. VQuakr (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undisputable Facts

  • As per your note about Knight Communications being deleted as spam. This was simply because I had not formatted the references properly and therefore did not show correctly in the article. By the time I had seen the notification, the article had already been deleted.
  • As for the statement of no notable sources, nor reliable sources, the Government of England and Whales, as wells the The British Parliament, as well as two different states within the United States Governement have all been cited.
  • The reason why I placed this here to begin with, was due to a hearing which was held in the House of Lords, where Knight Communications was asked to testify. I was present at this hearing and tried to research the companies on Wikipedia and could not find any mention of them. I then decided to join Wikipedia to add these companies to the Encyclopedia.
  • I have requested a copy of the article written by the Parliamentary Press on this hearing, but have not yet been given this document. Once I do, it will be cited.

Thank you AKnight2B (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • possibly keepthe article Knight Holdings if better sources can be provided , and, if so merge the other 2. there is might be justification for one article on a relatively major firm--there is no justification at all for trying to make three articles out of it. The component company names should be redirected to the main article. Trying to make too many articles when one would do is a rather reliable way of getting them all listed here. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis is this a relatively major firm? Per the lack of GNews hits mentioned in the nomination, I had trouble finding anything at all on these companies. VQuakr (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be right. Amended. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unremarkable companies with no significant coverage plus there's the conflict of interest/self promotion/advertising angle from the article creator. Delete the lot. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confilict of Interest MikeWazowski and VQuakr have both stated this is due to a conflict of interest, yet whenever I have requested of either of them on their Talk pages what the conflict of interest is, neither of them were able to tell me. MikeWazowksi had already deleted this article once without any debate, and without any time whatsoever to discuss the issue. AKnight2B (talk)
Actually, I've not deleted anything, as I'm not an administrator - I did tag it as spam, tho, which an admin apparently agreed with. As for the WP:COI, considering that your username is AKnight2B, and you're doing nothing but creating articles about a Christopher Knight and various companies related to him, your userpage says that you are an "American from New York City, whom now lives in London. I am in telecommunications", you've posted on your talk page that your name is Christopher Knight, just like the Christopher Knight you're writing about - I'd say that the conflict of interest here is pretty damn clear. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significance

The Parliamentary hearings just started a couple of weeks ago, and are no due to conclude until the end of this year. The press were present at the first hearing; however, the phone hacking scandal had overrun the media and therefore caused limited publication. However, given Lord Lairds resolve and his strong desire to make a serious change in the UK, I believe this set of hearings shall be something that many a person and press will be extremely interested in researching. As these companies start popping up more and more in the press, I will gladly site the names and articles of the publications in reference and quote form. AKnight2B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]


Acusation of Conflict of Interest A few points:

  • I did not create the Articles, I merely added properly formatted references
  • Yes, My name is Christopher Knight; however, so are about 24million other people in the world (a potential exageration, but I believe it depicts my point)
  • I AM in Telecom, as are millions of other people in this world (many of them with the name "Christopher Knight")
  • I have absolutely no conflict of interest in this matter, as I was merely present when this discussion took place in Parliament, and decided to research it more. I found THESE articles, and added the references.
  • The Articles are not about a person sharing my name, but rather about a company which has recently become of extreme interest to the Government in their discovery as to why people are overcharged for services in the EU
    • so AGAIN, please tell me where the conflict of interest comes into play AKnight2B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
You did create the Knight Holdings article. You also created the Knight Communications article back on July 14, but that was speedy deleted. A single purpose account (who's never edited again) created Knight Communications, Inc (USA) and Knight Communications, LTD (UK) - I wonder what a sockpuppet investigation would uncover, as that seems a mighty interesting circumstance. As for the WP:COI, (repeating what I posted a few days ago) considering that your username is AKnight2B, and you're doing nothing but creating/editing articles about a Christopher Knight and various companies related to him, your userpage says that you are an "American from New York City, whom now lives in London. I am in telecommunications", you've posted on your talk page that your name is Christopher Knight, just like the Christopher Knight you're writing about - I'd say that the conflict of interest here is pretty damn clear. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Sock Puppet

One simle question... Did you actually attempt to contact the individual and do a proper investigation into whether or not your accusations were accurate, prior to accusing and having two accounts locked?? If you look at the person's account whom you are accusing of beeing a sockpuppet, you will see their denial, but guessing they don't know to put the unblock command into their edit in order to attempt to be unblocked.

  • I have no sock puppet
  • If it were extremely unlikely for two people who don't know one another to have an interest in the same subject, then Wikipedia would not exist. AKnight2B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AKnight2B, you do have a sockpuppet - the evidence was clear enough that (after an investigation by the appropriate admins with the necessary tools) you were blocked 24 hours for it, and the sock was indefinitely blocked. Please don;t try to play the victim here - you got caught and nailed - end of discussion. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


MikeWazowski

  • These personal attacks against me have got to stop!!!! I have no idea who you are, all I know is that your incessint lies and manipulation of this system to further your own agenda are in complete contradication to Wikipedia:Civility policy. There has been no proof of any kind submitted other than your allogations which you place on every page and article. The "sockpuppet" investigation does not state that I have one, as I do not. It merely states that it is possible, not different than it being possible that I am the Pope. Please stop your politicing for your own personal satisfaction or gain.
  • This is a discussion as to the legitamacy of the Knight Articles, not me; therefore, if you would like to continue your personal attacks against me, I suggest you place them on my discussion page (which you apparently keep modifying to your satisfaction) and not on pages about articles.
  • Please be Civil and Professional!AKnight2B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Riiiiiight... you ask me for proof, then get upset and cry foul when I provide that proof. But to the main point of this whole discussion - you've not shown any proof that these companies meet the notability requirements. That alone will guarantee deletion for these pages. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


*Proof

  • I am still waiting for proof, your making a personal accusation against me which noone is able to prove, and I have no idea of how I would even go about disproving, is not proof, it is merely more of your politicing.
  • Again, this is not a discussion about me, therefore, please stop baiting and harrassing me on this discussion, this discussion is about whether or not the information about Knight Communications is accurate. Which again, I did not create, but merely added properly formatted references. AKnight2B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I suggest you re-read this [13] and stop attacking MikeWazowski who has done nothing untoward. The discussion is NOT about whether the articles are accurate but whether they are notableTeapotgeorgeTalk 22:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C. 4–4 Arsenal F.C.[edit]

Liverpool F.C. 4–4 Arsenal F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would have nominated this article along with Manchester United F.C. 4–3 Manchester City F.C. (2009) if I'd seen it earlier, but no matter. The same reasons for deletion apply: there are no sources to indicate this game's long-term notability, and even if there were, I still doubt that it would pass WP:ROUTINE. – PeeJay 20:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 20:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a historically important match like the 1989 classic and no records were set. Number 57 20:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No enduring notability, no records were broken, WP:ROUTINE. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite the uncommon scoreline, just a WP:ROUTINE sports match that fails to meet WP:GNG criteria. Deserter1 21:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No need to destroy Wikipedia with sadist bastards who ruin others' work all the time. Those people who have that as their primary duty ought to leave this place for good. Here is an article about one of the truly astonishing matches of last decade, a match that saqw eight goals between two massive clubs. Get real and stop being so stupid all. The. Time. Thanks. Roslagen (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on contributions, not contributors, or you might find yourself getting blocked. Anyway, everything you just said is a matter of your own opinion and doesn't explain why the game meets our expectations of notability for football matches. – PeeJay 22:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, non-notable match. GiantSnowman 12:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the other comments, no more notable than a thousand other matches. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Another entertaining but non-notable soccer game. Vanadus (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maxprint[edit]

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

Without sources or context, there is no indication that this brand is notable. PROD was contested. VQuakr (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United F.C. 4–3 Manchester City F.C. (2009)[edit]

Manchester United F.C. 4–3 Manchester City F.C. (2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Original reason for PROD was "No sources provided to indicate long-term notability of this game." PROD was removed with an attempt to address this issue, but still with no sources. In fact, the only external source is a link to The Guardian's statistical record of the game. – PeeJay 18:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 18:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Mr. Deletion and Mr. Sabotage of other people's work, this is not an article worthy of deletion. When one of biggest intra-city derbies in English football end with seven goals scored, the last on six minutes stoppage time in the wake of the most complicated transfer of a player between the rivals, the you say it's worthy of a deletion. Holy mama.Roslagen (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That, of course, is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but you need to provide sources to prove the game's noteworthiness in the media. Just because we think a game is notable doesn't mean it is. – PeeJay 18:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Instead of being so determined to move it away, how about you doing us a favour and help out with it? If so I may change my mind on you from being a discontributor to an actual pro-contributor...Roslagen (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would if I was convinced by the game's long-term notability. No records were set and it wasn't really an unforgettable match on the whole. As things stand, those are WP:FOOTY's inclusion standards for individual matches, and until those change, this game doesn't meet them. – PeeJay 19:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • No records were set in Battle of the Buffet or Battle of Old Trafford either, and I guess some people could forget about those too. Goal-spreading top matches or derbies will not be forgotten, and have long-term notability. Of course English football fans old enough to remember will have a huge likelihood to remember that Owen struck the winner in the 96th minute in the derby. Of course it is. There are no concerns whatsoever about that from my side. Only a brainwashed Wikimaniac would even consider the thought of doing that. Roslagen (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The thing about the Battle of the Buffet and the Battle of Old Trafford was that they both made front-page news, rather than back-page. This game made little more than back-page news as there was very little fallout from it. – PeeJay 19:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Honest, front-page views in the sporting pages goes for any event. Now I challenge you on the sources, can you prove thsi game was not on the first page of any significant newspaper in England? I guess it certainly was. Until you've proven such a thing, this article is innocent until proven guilty. Roslagen (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm afraid not. The burden of proof is on you to provide sources to prove this game's notability. And the question isn't whether this game was on the front page, but whether anything happened in it that extended beyond sporting matters. – PeeJay 19:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per WP:ROUTINE, "routine events such as sports matches... may be better covered as part of another article, if at all". Although 4-3 scorelines are uncommon, unlike Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. there was not any kind of record set and I don't believe it meets WP:GNG criteria. If the notability relates to the transfer of Carlos Tevez then some of the content could be incorporated into the relevant section of his article (if it hasn't been done so already). Deserter1 19:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing particularly special - derby matches are often full of goals/tension. Number 57 19:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article doesn't indicate anything particularly noteworthy. On the other hand, it may be acceptable to create a new article on Manchester intra-city football rivalry, and include a summary of all the games between these two teams. --Noleander (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already have Manchester derby. – PeeJay 19:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, that's the best solution then. --Noleander (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I heard a European announcer talk about a "darby" once, and I had no idea what he was talking about. Now I know ;-) --Noleander (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No enduring notability. A high-scoring derby match doesn't justify a stand-alone article. If it did there would be thousands of them. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ROUTINE. No evidence of longstanding notability for this game. Parts of it could be salvaged for the Manchester derby article. Valenciano (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge any important info to the derby article. There's no sign of any outstanding notability for this particular match, unless it can be found. As Argyle says, at this rate we could have hundreds and hundreds of these articles. I'm also really bored with people saying that their articles are notable until somebody else proves that they're not. Mercifully, Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any notable information to [[Manchester derby article. Warburton1368 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yet another non-notable match. Mention on Manchester derby, nothing more. GiantSnowman 12:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Entertaining match, but no notability. Vanadus (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tedious. Szzuk (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chase McBride[edit]

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

Does not meet any of the criteria in WP:MUSIC. Third-party sources all appear to be local (where he lives) reviews, including two from the same local paper, and one from a blog of a local radio station. I'm not sure if he's received any "non-trivial coverage" about a national concert tour. Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is clear, & I agree also, for the reasons specified, most clearly by Berian. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hostel life[edit]

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

Personal opinion, (brief) essay. Not encyclopaedic. Prod removed by author of article. Peridon (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Valley Gliding Club[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, fails WP:ORG Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following WikiProjects, within whose scope this article falls, have been notified of this deletion nomination: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since the nomination is to delete the article as it fails to meet notability requirements, I think you need to explain your indication that it should be kept if it is a non notable organization. - Ahunt (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. When ignoring rampant meatpuppetry, there is clear consensus here. causa sui (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fatimiya Sufi Order[edit]

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

No secondary sources indicating notability. All statements are based on blogs or other self published sources. A search on Google for the term only shows other self-published sources. Jeff3000 (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep This is nonsense. I note that Jeff3000 is a member of the Bahai Internet Agency http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency taskforce assigned to wikipedia by the Bahai body. This person is engaging in an blatant act of religious persecution regarding this article.

Reality Sandwich has run an article on the Fatimiya Sufi Order, here: http://www.realitysandwich.com/node/76773, there are two separate interviews run by independent outlets, here http://in-a-perfect-world.podomatic.com/entry/2010-01-04T17_21_24-08_00 and here http://radiohuasca.blogspot.com/2010/01/radiohuasca-12.html. This meets all the notability guidelines of wikipedia and as such the reason for nominating this article for deletion is purely motivated by sectarian reasons. --Fatimiya (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As such I disagree with the reasons for nomination and vote against this article being deleted. --Fatimiya (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Let's stay on topic, which is about Wikipedia standards for notability and reliable sources. Making comments about the editor (which by the way are all untrue) has no place on Wikipedia (see no personal attacks). The article is largely not referenced. The few references that it has are links to blogspot, which is a blogging website and is self-published, podomatic which is a site for users to create podcasts and is self-published, scribd, which is a website to upload self-published documents. The only link that has some editorial oversight is the realitysandwich one, but other than that there is no coverage anywhere on the web, in books, journals, etc, and notability states that "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You appear not to have even looked at the links given. There is only one single reference to a blogspot (which is in two parts) which links to the original upload of an interview conducted by a third party. The Reality Sandwich article is not a blogspot and that more than meets all standards of notability. The Podomatic link is also a third party. These interviews also exist on Youtube. I am happy to change the links from Podomatic and Blogspot to Youtube where the same interviews exist. The fact is, however, that you have nominated this article because you are a member of the Bahai Internet Agency taskforce of wikipedia and have a history of ideologically motivated deletion of articles and harassment of individuals who trump the ideological line of the Haifan Bahai organization to which you belong. You are not impartial here and the reasons for your nomination are not impartial either. I contend that your nomination is an act of bad faith and sock-puppetry on behalf of the Bahai Internet Agency: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency . Please note that your nomination for deletion and your subsequent activities in relation to this article are being recorded and will be publicly disclosed to third parties as an attempt by the Bahai Internet Agency of persecution of a non-Bahai religious group --Fatimiya (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please again, stay on topic, and refrain from personal comments. There is noting ideological here. The point is that virtually all the links above are all self-published (i.e. YouTube is self-published as well) and cannot be used to define notability. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stay on topic yourself. The links are not self-published. They are published by third parties. Cite me the guideline that third party links to Podomatic or Blogspot cannot be linked. These are by third parties. The Radiohuasca blog belongs to the host of the show itself (DJ Zart). And please bring a non-Bahai administrator to adjudicate this, please. Your reasons for nomination are ideological. As a member of the Bahai Internet Agency http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency taskforce of wikipedia you maintain a long track-record on wikipedia of religious harassment and religious persecution of all individuals and groups whom the Haifan Bahai organization to which you belong to deems to be ideological enemies. Your nomination is motivated and predicated by purely sectarian reasons, which negates any assumptions based on good faith given your track-record. Had there been any other editor but you, there wouldn't be an issue. That it is you, ipso facto demonstrates your nomination is ideological and originating in bad faith. Again, I ask an independent administrator to adjudicate this issue --Fatimiya (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC) The following link http://www.uq.edu.au/hprc/documents/Program_2008.pdf shows a lecture from 2008 at an academic conference given by a third party at the University of Queensland in Australia regarding the Fatimiya Sufi Order. --Fatimiya (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have pointed to the relevent Wikipedia articles. Self-pubslished sources such as blogs, personal websites, etc are not considered [[WP:RS]reliables sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify this for me Jeff. Is the University of Queensland a blog, a personal website or a self-publishing website? Which of these three is it? Help me out with this one. --Sevenislucky (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)— Sevenislucky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You are repeating yourself. No personal websites have been included in the article. In fact I removed a personal website from this article placed in it by the article's original author. Nothing in the links you provided, however, say anything about the non-inclusion of third party references to a subject, or interviews linked from a third party source, because these are all open to inclusion as verifiable third party sources. There are no personal websites referenced in this article. There are no personal blogs referenced this article. Third party verifiable sources have been included only. There is a blog of a Radio program linking to an interview in two parts. The blog is of the host of the radio program and not a personal blog, but a program blog. There is another one linking to an interview in one part on Podomatic. I am happy to move these to external sources now. We still have two verifiable sources which is more than enough for an article this size. --Fatimiya (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Jeff3000-I presented the paper, referenced above, at the 2008 'Alternative Expressions of The Numinous Conference', held at the University of Queensland. You have so far not clearly demonstrated any reason why the interviews cited here, including the one at the Reality Sandwich site, do not constitute valid third-party reference material. Should you wish to make this a matter of further definition, I will gladly assist you. I should make you aware that the content of this article is currently the subject of academic investigation and discussion by numerous parties in Australia and overseas, myself included. We will be closely monitoring this discussion, as there is a definite issue arising regarding an apparent editorial bias on behalf of certain editors towards the material presented. I look forward to the appointment of an unequivocally third-party adjudicator on this issue. Dr. Samuel Burch. School of English, Media Studies and Art History, University of Queensland.Samuel.Brc (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) — Samuel.Brc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete As lacking significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. I'm open to changing my !vote if there foreign language sources that my searching missed. See WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:RS for more details if you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia. (and just in case anyone asks: no, I'm not part of a conspiracy against whatever religion this group is). Qrsdogg (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say KEEP. On the basis that first, the nominator is a Baha'i whereas the article mentions that the organisation concerned (Fatimiyya Sufi Order) has made statements contradicting the Baha'i narrative and this has led to an easily verifiable (with the help of Google) bitter and protracted public quarrel between the Baha'is and the convenor of the Fatimiyya Sufi Order. This is clearly a case of CONFLICT OF INTEREST if ever there was one. The nomination should be struck out on that basis alone. Second, even if there was no conflict of interest, the reasons given for deletion are spurious and clearly false. According to Google there really seems to be an organisation by the name of Fatimiyya Sufi Order and its existence is confirmed by many people not connected with it, from SOAS to 'realitysandwich'. --Sevenislucky (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)— Sevenislucky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note, the above editor is a single-use account created one minute before posting the above. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noted that Jeff. Thanks. I'm glad you noted it too. At least you noted something. I created this account just to post that comment and as you're a moderator you will hopefully note my IP address is 1) fixed and 2) different from all other commentators on this page. Have you anything to note about your failure to note that the Fatimiyya Sufi Order is recognised by SOAS, realitysandwich and others not connected with Mr Azal or his organisation? Please take note and refer to Google and the references list again. Thank you.--Sevenislucky (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)— Sevenislucky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note that editor Jeff3000 is determined to delete this article no matter what. I refer to the discussion above and to this link, here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency . Unless Jeff3000 can show otherwise, I can't seem to find anything that says single-user accounts cannot vote or express their views about an article nominated for deletion. I remind Jeff3000 that Wikipedia is a community effort and that no editor here holds a personal propriety over the site. --Fatimiya (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose. Many SPAs turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, but a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion, showcasing and/or advocacy. For these reasons, experienced editors often scrutinize the editing activities of new editors and SPAs carefully in a discussion to discern whether they appear to be here to build an encyclopedia (perhaps needing help and advice), or alternatively edit for promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas. The community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject; at the same time it is not a platform for advocacy. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 01:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have already made it clear that I created this account just because I was concerned about the nomination for deletion. Judging by your comments, certain things have 'no bearing' on the question of whether an article can be deleted. These things are: having academic credentials to support a particular claim about a group (in this case the group Fatimiya Sufi Order) and being new to Wikipedia, which you have just stated will be treated as a crime. On the latter point, I have noted that EVERYONE who joined up like me to express their disapproval at the nomination for deletion has now been officially accused of sockpuppetry. And yet you accuse strangers of acting in bad faith? And you say new editors are welcome at Wikipedia but your view as an older member carries more weight. I simply don't accept that. Your opinions have no special status here.--Sevenislucky (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I say KEEP. and don't delete the article - my name is Roya - I am the creator of this entry, I am a research and IT professional and the academic credentials of this order & persons are verified. I am an expert in Social Information Architecture & work within inter faith dialogue & for anti-extremism iniatives. The Fatimiya Sufi order, their Shaykh and it's teachings are recognized with letters of reference by Cambridge University and SOAS - School of Oriental and African Studies - London. The teachings described as Bayanism/Babism, and the schism between Bayanism & Bahaism - is recognized by scholars in Cambridge and London & worldwide. Further reference in artcile, EG Browne etc. Further academic soruces for references are available but not included yet due to time factors. It has been checked if the person / organisation named as Fatimiya Sufi Order & Nima Wahid Azal is victim of online bullying which we found by analysis to be positive. The methods of the declared enemies of this order - enemies due to different spiritual teachings and schism between Bayanis/Babis & the Baha'i - have not gone unnoticed by authorities and scholars. The issue of online bullying and silencing people of different beliefs through such methods has also been put forward to anti-extremism/cult monitoring groups. The Fatimiya Sufi Order under leadership of it's Shaykh Nima Wahid Azal is a genuine research and spiritual authority on Babism, the Bayan as well as the Bahai which are important & recognized branches of Shi'a Islam & Sufism. See for example speeches at SOAS. I can be contacted under the email address known to Wikipedia to verify my identitity & the academic credentials mentioned (copy of letters etc). I have now added 3rd party references to the article that highlight the wider relevance and academic importance. Infringement of copyright concerning the Fatimiya Sufi Order is impossible as the contributed material is unique & references are verifiable through historic sources & academics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royajakoby (talk • contribs) 15:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC) — Royajakoby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. Your academic credentials have no bearing on the notability of articles on Wikipedia. The article needs to establish notability through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The subject and article are both clearly lacking in this area. It's not enough to vaguely assert notability in a deletion discussion. The article itself, must document notability through the general notability guidelines. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There appear to be rules for notability established for most articles and entries on wikipedia while another applied to this one. We have established independent notability 1) through 3 independent written references and 2) 2 independent audio interviews (which for an inexplicable reason you say we cannot include although there is nothing that says we cannot include them as references). Just as your earlier assertion about this article violating copyright (which it wasn't as that site itself was quoting from the Fatimiya site) so is your assertion now about the lack of notability. This is an excuse. There are articles on wikipedia with far less notability than this one yet they have been on wikipedia for years. Arguably there are interested parties intent on deleting this article, as this article is clearly being singled out because the nominator of the article has a history of this sort of behaviour with all other groups and articles deemed ideological enemies to the Haifan Bahai organization to which he belongs; this, given the fact that he is a sock-puppet of the Bahai Internet Agency: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency and has not denied it. Also due to the baseless accusations that have been made here (esp. the sock-puppet ones, that are clearly designed to disenfranchise the voices who wish this article to stay), and contrary to your assertion earlier that there is no conspiracy, clearly given the behaviour here of assorted parties there is absolutely no other conclusion to be made than that this is precisely what is going on. Thankfully there are three institutionally affiliated academics here who have now witnessed this spectacle for themselves and can record it for posterity about the standards of moderation and nomination on wikipedia, and the kind of manipulative bureaucratic red-tape that is employed to silence and censor legitimate entries --Fatimiya (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, I haven't commented about any audio interviews. There are a couple of external links (Radiohuasca) that are dead though. I tried to find a link at the waybackmachine.org, but there was nothing there. Please note, that we cannot use blogs such as those on blogspot.com to support notability. On another note, yes, the content was created as a copyright violation. The copyright holder has not officially donated the material to the Foundation. This content was removed by the reviewing administrator, as a clear violation of copyright law. Regardless of your claims to authorship, unless (and until) you provide proof of copyright ownership to the Foundation, it remains a copyright violation and as such, we cannot accept the content on Wikipedia. I really don't understand why you don't choose to follow through on donating the content to Wikipedia, if you are indeed the owner of the copyright. Of the three citations that directly support article content, only one (realitysandwich.com) mentions the subject in any great detail beyond peripheral mentions. This simply doesn't equate to significant coverage. I'm personally not connected to any conspiracy. And I'm certainly not intent on seeing the article deleted. My focus is on ensuring that notability for the subject has been established in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have personally performed a thorough search of "Fatimiya Sufi Order" in books, news, and online sources that may support the article. The only content that I have found amounts to self-published material. As far as different rules for notability from one article to the next, all articles about churches, religions, or religious orders require significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 01:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, I didn't identify an author of the material. I simply identified the copyright violation, which was appropriately removed from the article. The material appears to be based on the works of Laurence Galian and two other individuals. (I agree that there was bad editing/visual placement.) It's also messed up on the Fatimiya Sufi Order webpage. Regarding the EG Browne link, quite puzzling, since the link never once mentioned the subject of the article. Please note that the http://fatimiyasufiorder.org website clearly has a notice of copyright at the bottom of the page (not that one is required to ensure protection). Wikipedia wouldn't use the material even if the copyright notice didn't exist. We simply cannot use any copyrighted material on Wikipedia, unless it is officially donated to the Foundation. And in this particular case, the content was never donated. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 01:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above editor has voted twice. Also E.G. Browne never comments on the principle subject of the article, as he died well over 70 years before the apparent start of the Fatima Sufi Order. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment E.G. Browne clearly commented and extensively documented the Azali-Bahai division, esp. the murder of Azali (i.e. Bayani) leaders by the Baha'is. What are you talking about? And it is Fatimiya not Fatimi --Fatimiya (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment E.G. Browne documenting the aforementioned issues http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/diglib/books/A-E/B/browne/tn/tnappx2.htm --Fatimiya (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, E.G. Browne did write about the Azali-Bahai disputes, but he did not write about the subject of the article, which is the Fatimaya Sufi Order, because he died 70 years before it started. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fatimiya, Jeff300. F-A-T-I-M-I-Y-A. Please note the correct spelling for the main word of the article you yourself nominated for deletion --Fatimiya (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooks Sattva (talk • contribs) 20:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC) — Brooks Sattva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP This article has met all criteria to KEEP. This article has shown more credability than many other long standing articles. Those seeking deletion seem to have an agenda other than community participation in Wikipedia.--Al Zulfikari (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)— Al Zulfikari (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete The first two sources are not independent. The third source might be independent or it might be a press release handed to the University. Zero GBooks or Gnews hits, so it there just aren't enough reliable independent sources to show notability. Edward321 (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward321, are you referring to the program for the 2008 'Alternative Expressions of the Numinous Conference', held at the University of Queensland in association with the Studies in Religion Department, for which papers needed to be accepted by the conference's organising panel? If so, this is demonstrably not the case. If I need to clear this up, I will. Those supporting the deletion of this article need to CLEARLY state why the web-magazine, Reality Sandwich, published by Evolver LLC, and covered by wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Sandwich, is not valid. Daniel Pinchbeck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pinchbeck) is the magazine's editorial director. The article referred to was a feature article, not a blog, thus it was subject to editorial review. Essentially, the editors supporting deletion are suggesting that Reality Sandwich, and by implication, its editorial director/team, are not reputable. Is this the case?Samuel.Brc (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources are independent. If Edward321 has evidence that they are not independent, let him show the evidence that they are not (that still means something here, right? Evidence). I've now put in a third independent source from Sufi.Net that has also been linked in other articles on wikipedia as a reference of notability. Clearly this article meets all the criteria of notability. BTW what is the result of the sock-puppet investigation against the three people here? --Fatimiya (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it is clear almost all hits on the internet are self-published, blogs, email discussion areas announcing the group for publicity, etc. The only third party ref I saw was a blurb which was ONLY a quote from one of the blurbs. The first source is under the heading "PROPAGANDA ANONYMOUS'S BLOG", the second only mentions it with almost no commentary, the third indicates only a session at one conference designed to look at small groups and the presenter is a member of the group, and the third is another blog by a recent investigator of sufi meditation and is again mentioned only as a member of a long list of alternative sufi meditation groups. How does any of this reach notability? It doesn't. Smkolins (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SmKolins. Please see here: http://www.realitysandwich.com/fatimiya_sufi_and ayahuasca. It is listed as "Feature" under the category "Pysche". Therefore, the article is a feature, though it was also posted under this users blog. Get your facts straight, please. And what does your pejorative suggestion regarding the 'size' of the groups mentioned at the conference mean? And just for the record, is Reality Sandwich a reputable source, or not? Samuel.Brc (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All features on Realitysandwich must go through an editorial process. Propaganda Anonymous is a writer on the site and as a writer of the site has their own blog. No one on Realitysandwich can publish a feature without editorial oversight and no individual article is published without reference to the blogger-writer who authored it. This is that site's policy. Smkolins is welcome to write the site and ask them about this policy. Clearly there is a determined ideological motivation initiated by the wikipedia taskforce of the Bahai Internet Agency to delete this article. Canard and red herrings are presented as arguments regarding notability. Double-standards are being employed instead which in a court room setting would indict said parties for collusion and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. As such, insofar as this matter is concerned, a complaint has been filed as of today with a body who investigates claims of religious persecution and discrimination, and against the Bahai Internet Agency and their activities on wikipedia. Archives of this discussion together with archives of previous instances when users Jeff3000, Edward321 and their friends have done similar have been forwarded to the body.--Fatimiya (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wildthing61476-Your reasons being?Samuel.Brc (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No independent sources, zero hits for the group, all the sources that are found are self-published, which are not reliable sources. In short, I don't see where notability is being met. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of independent reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article represents a recognized Sufi order and the work of its founder presents a rigorous, authentic, contemporary scholarship that illuminates the path of Sufism. Gloria Erickson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloriaerickson (talk • contribs) 01:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC) — Gloriaerickson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Nobody is questioning that it is a recognized order, or that it exists. Wikipedia has rules for notability that every article must meet, and this one currently does not. That's not to say that the order isn't valid, but for now at least, it doesn't meet the established guidelines for an article on Wikipedia. That's not to say it never will, there are many articles that were initially deleted as not meeting Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, but later did end up being articles that met these guidelines. For now, however, the article does not. - SudoGhost 02:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per my comment above. - SudoGhost 02:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article meets all necessary criteria to exist. This wouldn't be the first page containing ideological differences to certain groups that has been hounded into deletion Rowan3001 (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC) — Rowan3001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — [[User::Rowan300|:Rowan300]] ([[User talk::Rowan300|talk]] • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete per lack of notable media coverage, I didn't see anything except for the group's website on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 21:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister- What are you talking about? Why is almost everyone supporting deletion ignoring the Reality Sandwich article? Nobody has given a straight answer as to whether they perceive this as a reputable source or not, as per my comments above. This article was actually recast on a news feed at the University of Western Sydney. http://mcm.uws.edu.au/feed/article/189495/collapse/ajax/ajaxSamuel.Brc (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Reality Sandwhich article is a blog. Most blogs are considered self-published sources, and are not sufficient to establish the notability of an article's subject. As this blog entry seems to be the only reference being suggested as showing notability, the article therefore does not have sufficient notability. - SudoGhost 12:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article on Realitysandwich is not a blog it a featured article. Calling it a blog is a misrepresentation of how Realitysandwich works --John Theodore Sanders (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC) — John Theodore Sanders (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This link makes it pretty clear on being a blog. It's a bit hard to misrepresent such a thing when it's right there at the top of the page (and part of the URL). - SudoGhost 16:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, SudoGhost, it doesn't make it clear it's a blog post, because the article isn't a blog post. The blog you are referring to is a collection of the ARTICLES etc (including blog posts), submitted by the contributor, Propaganda Anonymous, so it did appear in this users blog after it had been published as a feature. This is how Reality Sandwich works. Did you even read my comments above regarding the editorial process at Reality Sandwich? See here again: http://www.realitysandwich.com/node/76773 The article is a "Feature" article, in the "Psyche" category, and that is how it appeared when it was originally published. It's a bit hard to misrepresent such a thing when it's right there at the top of the page. Samuel.Brc (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When it says Blog in big letters across the top of the page, it's hard to argue that it isn't. The "Feature" article is a blog by another name, calling it otherwise does not make it so (it isn't a collection of blogs and non-blogs, and nowhere does it say the blog post is an article, but instead breaks the blog posts into different tags). This is not a reliable third-party source, and it is not enough to establish the notability of the article. However, even if the blog is not a blog, and is 100% a reliable source, articles require multiple reliable sources, not a single reference of questionable reliability. This alone is not sufficient. - SudoGhost 23:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pinchbeck has a 'Blog' here http://www.realitysandwich.com/blog/daniel_pinchbeck, in which his FEATURE articles are then re-posted, so as you can see, unless you are questioning the reputation and reliability of the site and its editors, you really have to admit that this is a genuine article. If this is so, surely the fact that there ARE multiple other sources, including two audio interviews by third parties, a verifiable paper at a religious studies conference, and footage of a talk given at the Society of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London (to which one does not just walk in and start talking), does in fact establish that a notable discourse exists regarding this subject. The existence of a conference paper about this subject should also suggest that further academic discourse is on its way (noting also that the Reality Sandwich article was also recast in a news feed at the University of Western Sydney, as mentioned above), which would mean that rather than delete this article, it should be kept with a note for future expansion.Samuel.Brc (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are blogs. Not articles. That they are "featured" on their own website does not make them cease to be a questionable self-published source. - SudoGhost 00:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting the whole of Reality Sandwich is a blog, not a web magazine? Go to page of 4 of the 'Psyche' category of the feature articles, and you will see the article clearly labelled 'Feature'. http://www.realitysandwich.com/psyche?page=4 . Every contributor of 'feature' articles also links to their own blog page, which is a secondary collection of their articles. This is how the website works. I don't know how this can be made any clearer. The article in question went through editorial review, ie it, and all the other feature articles, are 'features' first, and blog posts second. If you wish to argue differently, I suggest you go and change the Reality Sandwich wikipedia entry from a web-magazine, to a blog. See below:

"Reality Sandwich is a web magazine published by Evolver LLC, a privately held company. The site is intent, as its tag line expresses it, on "evolving consciousness bite by bite". Subjects run the gamut from sustainability to shamanism, alternate realities to alternative energy, remixing media to re-imagining community, holistic healing techniques to the promise and perils of new technologies. It offers a forum for voices ranging from the ecologically pragmatic to the wildly visionary. Content includes essays, short news stories, video clips, and audio podcasts. Over 1,000 articles have been published on the site since its launch in May, 2007. Author Daniel Pinchbeck serves as the magazine's editorial director, and SonicNet co-founder Ken Jordan is its publisher. Contributors include Douglas Rushkoff, DJ Spooky, Erik Davis, Alex Grey, Stanislav Grof, RU Sirius, Sharon Gannon, and The Yes Men."Reality Sandwich Samuel.Brc (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. You're really not getting anywhere with the back and forth on this issue. With all due respect, you're simply not going to convince experienced editors according to your lack of knowledge about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There's simply no point to it. It has been explained to you over and over again to no avail. I suppose it comes with experience. I would like to invite you to consider reading and reviewing the policies on verifiability and reliable sources. Once you familiarize yourself with the policies, you may have a better understanding and be able to clearly identify what is acceptable on Wikipedia. And what is not. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 02:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am arguing the point because I believe the editor in question, and indeed the editor who originally nominated this article for deletion, are incorrect in labeling this source as either 'self-published', or as a blog. As per wikipedia policies, Questionable sources:

"are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."

I am arguing the validity and reputation of Reality Sandwich as a resource, under the editorial oversight of Daniel Pinchbeck. I would also like to note this point. The content of the article relates to material on Bábism, Subh-i-Azal, the Bayani movement and Haoma, amongst other things. Whilst presenting a counter-narrative, which certain editors who have worked on these topics in relation to the Baha'i Faith may not agree with, this article relates to a significant socio-religious discourse (which has been initiated within the academy as per the conference proceedings, and is also mentioned in a typological list of Sufi groups by a full tenured Professor of Sociology here http://sufi.religionsnet.com/), and presents clear future potential for improvement as more scholarly research is made available. As far as inclusion goes, this should mean that this is not an example of an entry constituting an indiscriminate collection of information.Samuel.Brc (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is nothing (that I can find) that either supports or denies oversight of the Propaganda Anonymous blog. It is, however, a blog. Blogs lacking oversight are considered self published. See WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB for more information. Please note that even if we accept that oversight is provided, the sourcing still does not establish notability in accordance with the general notability guidelines. On another note, it is futile to argue the reputation of Reality Sandwich. Reputation is not among the criteria that establishes notability on Wikipedia. And the http://sufi.religionsnet.com/ is self-published by Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. his "full tenured" status has no bearing on the fact that the website is self-published. Again, recognizing the appropriateness of various sources and whether or not specific references meet the criteria for reliability comes with experience. While your enthusiasm is commendable, it is simply a bit misguided. Your arguing is essentially landing on deaf ears, because the rationale is not in compliance with policy and guidelines. While assuming good faith about you personally, you may wish to review this link regarding invitations extended to others, requesting them to participate in this discussion. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 04:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy- no, it is a feature article (with a tag saying 'feature') that appears, as all feature articles do, as blog posts on the individual contributor's blogs. http://www.realitysandwich.com/psyche?page=4. Period. Whatever you may say about 'deaf ears', I personally don't care how many times I have to repeat this point, as the fact remains that this is not self-published. All articles go to the author's blog page after being published. For example, if you go to editorial director, Daniel Pinchbeck's, page and click on the first entry in his blog, it will take you to the related feature article/news item etc, which is not designated as a blog. Do you see how this works? Entry on an individual contributor's blog is SECONDARY to the publication of the article as part of the content of the magazine. The same applies to the article in question here. You go to the user's blog page, which is a collection of their articles, and it takes you to the feature page. As I suggested to another editor, if you disagree with this position, you'd probably best go and change the Reality Sandwich Wikipedia entry to reflect your assertion that this is not in fact a web-magazine, but a collective blog, or series of blogs. I'm not backing down on this point, 'deaf ears', selectively deaf ears, or otherwise. Furthermore, to quote SudoGhost, "Nobody is questioning that it is a recognized order, or that it exists." As per deletion guidelines, For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. I have added the Fatimiya Sufi Order to the list of Sufi Orders here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sufi_orders#F, and since SudoGhost says there is no reason to doubt the Order's existence or recognition, this should not be an issue. So are you prepared to support wiping this one out completely, even with an independent mention in university conference proceedings and internal linkages to major historical articles within Wikipedia? Samuel.Brc (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I really don't want to argue the issue anymore. The horse is long.gone.dead. On another note, I think adding the organization to the List of Sufi Orders was great! I realize that you initially arrived at Wikipedia merely in a desire to participate in this deletion discussion. These discussions can often get a bit heated with quite a bit of repetition of arguments and statements. While we may not share opinions of this particular article, I maintain respect for you and I appreciate that in spite of the disagreement, you have maintained your cool during the discussion. That said, I would like to invite you to consider staying around after the discussion is over. I don't know if you're aware of this, but Wikipedia has "WikiProjects" within the community that bring editors together that share common encyclopedic interests. We have a specific WikiProject that may interest you, that focuses on religion. Here is a link. You'll notice that there are also specialized workgroups and potential workgroups that focus on one particular religion. It doesn't look like Sufi Orders are represented within the WikiProject. Would you consider sticking around and participating in this area? It can actually be a lot of fun! I invite you to check it out. If you are interested, add your name to the list of members on the project page and spend some time checking out all their resources. And of course, if you have any questions about it, please feel free to contact me anytime. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editorial board and site owner of Realitysandwich have been notified of the manner in which certain wikipedia editors here have deliberately misrepresented that site and the work it does. It has been explained to how Realitysandwich works. Another editor even requested the site itself be contacted. Instead the editors here have stuck to their guns and continued their misrepresentation. --John Theodore Sanders (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC) — John Theodore Sanders (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete - not notable. No significant, verifiable, third party references. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an obvious hoax. TerriersFan (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadia High School (Maryland)[edit]

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

The is a fictional high school. It's only existence is a web site, which according to this link is the also web site of the horror filmmaker Jeremy Kasten. There are no reliable third party sources to show this school exists or ever existed. It is certainly not a public school in Baltimore GcSwRhIc (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, and apparently if it were it would be a non-notable fictional location DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I second DGG's analysis. In addition, I looked at the whois for the "official website" and it's registered via an anonymous registrar, which no real school would ever do. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, seeing as it's not listed on the City Schools website. SheepNotGoats (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Easy decision Djohns21 (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liddle Kidz Foundation[edit]

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

Little to no truly independent sources to establish notability; the sources already in article are minor references on trade websites. Google news, scholar and book searches I tried did not find any independent sources to establish notability. Yobol (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • References for Liddle Kidz Foundation
Of 13 sources, 9 are sources independent of Liddle Kidz Foundation.
Google news, scholar and book searches do not find results for many of the entries on Wikipedia.
A Google search of "liddle kidz foundation" returns 471,000 results.
A Google search of liddle kidz foundation returns 14,000 results.
Sources 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 are from sources independent of Liddle Kidz Foundation – they include:
Touch Research Institute Published Research Articles in J Dev Behav Pediatr -
(copyrighted text from http://www.handsonbabies.co.uk/train/accreditation/ removed by Gurt Posh (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
(copyrighted text from http://www.prweb.com/releases/non-profit_goodwill/greatnonprofits_donors/prweb4598114.htm removed by Gurt Posh (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
(copyrighted text from http://www2.guidestar.org/rxg/help/faqs/about-guidestar/index.aspx removed by Gurt Posh (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Massage Today & Massage Magazine –
Both of these references are to professional healthcare publications. These publications are recognized as unbiased, industry leading publications.
(copyrighted text from http://www.facebook.com/MassageMagazine?sk=info removed by Gurt Posh (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Massage Therapy Radio -
Massage Therapy Radio is a professional, internationally broadcast radio program supporting the healthcare field of massage therapy. Industry experts and professionals are interviewed and profiled during their programming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmyEliz (talk • contribs) 15:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus, for the reasons specified. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Club Baseball[edit]

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

Club sport at a college. Whoopie. There are tens of thousands of them in existence, with less than .01% meeting thresholds for notability. This is not an exception. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Xiana Moon[edit]

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

Singer-songwriter that fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER. Actor that fails WP:NACTOR. Article appears to be autobiographical. | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteSeems pretty clear; what is given in the article does not amount to notability DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk to me 16:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laissez-faire fraternity[edit]

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

I declined a speedy deletion on this, because the author claims on the talk page that it is "a well-established economic think tank which bears significant influence on economic, academic and political culture of the United States." If so, independent references should be easy to find, but I can find none. All that exist are connected with Georgian International University, with which the Fraternity seems to be closely connected: it has endorsed a book written by the University's President, Zviad Lazarashvili; the University has a scholarship in its name; and it has already awarded the University the "2012 Laissez-faire Medal of Freedom" according to the University's website - which was only set up on 19 May this year, though the University article says it was established in 1812. Also, the articles on the Fraternity and the University are by the same SPA author. JohnCD (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence for real existence., let alone even worth considering notability guidelines. Fails WP:V. I deleted the p. on the Georgian International University as a copy of its website, but I doubt even its real existence. The argument against a SNOW deletion is that the contributor of the article does need a chance to demonstrate actual sources. I cannot prove there are none, and stranger things have turned out to be real. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with above. No quality evidence.--Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 10:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notable mentions. I didn't see anything on both a Yahoo! and Google search. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear POV fork; I shall make a protected redirect after the deletion. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Macedonians of Greece[edit]

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

POVFORK of Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia. At one point there was a separate article on the ethnic Macedonians ("Aegean Macedonians") in Greece, but it was decided by consensus to merge with the former article on "Slavophone Greeks". This is the same group, just that some identify as Greek and some not. At the time it was decided it was best to have a single article and deal with the identity question there. Athenean (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • support Wasn't it agreed some time ago that this was just a POV fork of the original article and that it should stay a redirect? That way or the other, I do not see the purpose of yet another article that repeats the original but with someone's nationalistic views included. --Laveol T 16:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • support: prime purpose of the POV fork seems to be the contentious notion that the north of Greece is inhabited by ethnic Macedonians. Other than that the overlap to Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia amounts to 100%, so why have two articles on the same subject? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Due to the utter confusion that this interpretation causes. Moreover, ethnic Slavs that inhabit Macedonia in Greece are not ethnic Macedonians (albeit a recently promoted claim) i.e. they are not the descendents of Alexander the Great's Macedonia. This is pure fantasy and invention.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 17:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article, as yet, does not provide any genuine distinction between itself and Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia. I suggest that the material be merged into Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, and if an editor wants to perform a WP:content fork they discuss the rationale in that article's talk page. A content fork may be acceptable, but a POV fork is not. --Noleander (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose - The opposition to this article has mainly come from Greek and Bulgarian users, who do not generally recognise the existence of the Macedonian people and the seperateness of the Macedonian language at all, let alone as a minority population in Greece.
This article deals with the many people who personally identify as ethnically Macedonian. The term "Slavic-speakers" has historically been used to degrade the Macedonian ethnicity, and is considered highly perjorative to people who identify as ethnic Macedonians. There is however enough information about the ethnic Macedonians of Greece (and their diaspora), which in any other circumstance, would have left them with their own article a long time ago.
The Macedonians in Greece have:
  • A Political party
  • Non-governmental organisations
  • Cultural organisations
  • Macedonian language courses
  • Several Macedonian language newspapers
  • Elected Macedonians to a number political positions
  • Macedonian language radio stations
  • Produced a Macedonian-Greek dictionary
  • Printed Macedonian language school books and language primers
  • Sought recognition from the Greek government as a minority group
  • Sought recognition to have their lanaguge taught in schools
  • Been recognised by a plethora of English and French language publications, as an unrecognised minority group living in Greece. (If necessary, I will provide sources to back up these facts)
These people are not some "fringe group" as many of the Greek users would have everyone believe. In spite all of these examples of the self-identification of the ethnic Macedonians living in Greece, Why is it not possible for them to have their own article on Wikipedia.Lunch for Two (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. - Lunch for Two (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: My point exactly. "We need to have our article, where we can push our POV, since they have their articles where they push their POV." In other words, a POVFORK. For example, I note Lunch for Two is copy-pasting the same information in both Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia and Ethnic Macedonians in Greece [14] [15]. This is forking, pure and simple. All of the information about this group can be easily included in Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, I don't see why we need a separate article. Any new information can also be included there as desired, without any problem. Most importantly, however, it was decided by community consensus to merge these articles a while back, and re-creating the separate article is a violation of that consensus. Considering the user responsible is a returning user who is most likely aware of that consensus, this borders of disruptive editing. Athenean (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response; I am not aware of any other ethnic groups on Wikipedia which have been forcibly grouped together with people who share completely different ideologies (belief that they are ethnically Greek vs ethnic Macedonian), customs (adoption of ethnic Greek customs, rituals and celebrations vs preservation of tradition customs, rituals and celebrations) and ways of life (accepting and fostering assimilation into the mainstream Greek ethnicity vs preservation of the Macedonian language and identification as ethnic Macedonians). It is an unacceptable POV to place people under titles which they completely reject, in order to please one side of the argument (Which it should be noted, constantly denies the existence of the seperate Macedonian people and language). The debate will not be able to progress until this POV is sorted out.
  • Furhtermore, I am not aware of an ethnic group which has shown so much self-identification, yet is forcibly reduced to being placed under the title of "Slavic-speakers"; which is a perjorative and offensive title these people clearly reject.
  • As for some information being transferred, yes, it has. I will tell you why, it is because I for one had initially posted much of the information on the "Slavic-speakers" page, only in the absence of this page. Now that this page has been created, it only makes sense to transfer the information here, and write about those people who identify as "Slavic-speakers" (as is made clear by the title of that page).
  • The fact is that given the lack of notable information about so called "Slavic-speakers" (which is made clear by the fact that hardly any of the article is actually about people who identify as "Slavic-speakers"), the article primarily revolves around the ethnic Macedonians, given the existence of a new article it is only normal for that information to be moved there. The article can then revolve around those who call themselves "Slavic-speakers" Lunch for Two (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose - The arguments of the nominator (and supporting users) lack validity and appear to be the consequence of their highly nationalistic agenda. More over, I will present Wikipedia with an important quote from the Human Rights Watch, published in 1994, on the condition and denial of the Ethnic Macedonian minority of Greece, by the Greek Government:

"The Greek government denies that a Macedonian minority exists in Greece. It refers to ethnic Macedonians as "Slavophones" or "Slav-speakers." The official Greek position is that the Greek state is ethnically homogeneous, the only exception being the Muslim minority in western Thrace (the Turkish minority32) whose existence was confirmed in 1923 by the Lausanne Treaty."[1]

Full Report can be viewed here.

Since this is also Wikipedia (an international Encylopedia,) deleting this article would be in clear violation of the most basic user and human-right, the recognition of one's ethnic existence.--Xythianos (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user is a Persian ultranationalist troll [16] who is wikistalking me and is clearly only voting here out of spite. This is in apparent retaliation for a content dispute over at Ancient history [17]. Athenean (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Even in Greek census such minority exist, even though the number is small. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing alert: The preceding comment is result from canvassing on the Macedonian Wikipedia. The comment reads: "If you have time, please, vote here (link to the article) as Greek user are once again trying to delete the article. Help is needed so that Macedonians in Greece have their article on the English language version of Wikipedia. If there are other users, please, vote.".--Laveol T 10:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a platform for pushing POVs, and if the article is kept I believe it should be very well-sourced and reviewed by people neutral to the Greek-Macedonian dispute. --Philly boy92 (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe the article should be moved to Ethnic Macedonians in Greece, "Ethnic Macedonians of Greece" sounds like Greece owns the ethnic Macedonian living within it, like "Music of Greece", "Culture of Greece" etc. --Philly boy92 (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agree. I can't find any reference to this, could you please direct us to the correct part of these two pages where relevant information can be found? --Philly boy92 (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point. The Macedonia related article edited (IMO trolled) by the new user have survived over the last 2 years due to a lengthy arbitration process that made different editors with different priorities come to an agreement. All editors have respected the arbitration. But there is more to it than that, and this is my point here, editors have also refrained from changing the names of articles which, in many cases are redirected. Politis (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The NCMAC and ARBMAC2 are completely irrelevant here. Regarding this article, Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia was originally created by User:PMK1 under the name Aegean Macedonians back in '08. There was also an article called Slavophone Greeks for those Slavic-speakers that identified as Greeks rather than ethnic Macedonians. At some point (I think it was either 2009 or 2010), it was decided to merge these two articles into a single article called Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia. This was discussed on some talkpage (I think that of Slavophone Greeks). I've tried to find the discussion but because of all the merging I have so far been unable to find it. I remember User:Future Perfect at Sunrise was part of the discussion, and he might know more. Here it is [18]. Athenean (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is for these above reasons why debate about this topic should once again occur. It has been over 3 years since the issue came to the fore, and during this period many people have had the chance to reassess their own personal beliefs given the increased scholarship and information now available for this subject. Compared to 3 years ago, there are significant more Greeks (on Wikipedia and more widely) who do recognise the existence of ethnic Macedonians living in Greece (this in itself is a significant shift). In the future due to better hinformation and greater tolerance I can only see more people also coming to this conclusion. Lunch for Two (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to start a new debate, which is fine, the way to do that is to propose that the article be recreated on a talkpage, then let the debate begin. Not by creating a fait accompli and then hoping for "consensus by default" (once an article is created "keep" votes have an inherent advantage, as in the event of an inconclusive AfD the article is kept by default). Athenean (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per policy in wiki about Balkan minorities. There is no need to create the same articles with a diferrent or similar name (we have Slavic speakers in Greece and its enough). I remember a similar situation where 'Greek minority in Albania' and 'Northern Epirotes' were merged, although the terms are not completely the same. Alexikoua (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I fail to see the logic in this. Are you suggesting that the fact that I speak English makes me ethnically British? Likewise, does speaking the Macedonian language make someone Macedonian? They would very well have a Greek consciousness and still speak Macedonian. Language and ethnicity are two very different things, and in this case "slavic speakers" is a Greek-POV euphemism for the small albeit existing minority of Macedonians in Greece, which also includes non-Macedonian slavic speakers. Also, what wikipedia policy on Balkan minorities?--Philly boy92 (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no wikipedia policy on Balkan minorities, but the thing to keep in mind here is that there is one group of people, not two. Regardless of how they are named or how some of them identify, they are never treated in the literature as two separate groups of people. Thus there should only be one article, where nomenclature and identity are properly discussed. The title of the article may well be up for discussion, but that is a separate matter that can be dealt with a move request as Noleander points out. Athenean (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - One of the arguments of the "keep" editors is that a better name for the slavic-speakers of Greece is the phrase "Ethnic Macedonians of Greece". That may be true, but the best process to use to reach that goal is to work on the Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia article, improve it, then propose a rename to "Ethnic Macedonians of Greece" using the WP:REQMOVE process. --Noleander (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, however in this circumstance it is unlikely to happen. There is no way that Greek users will allow the whole article to be renamed "Ethnic Macedonians of Greece", because not all of the Macedonian speakers identify as ethnic Macedonians (I personally would not agree with this move either). I believe you have possibly missed the main issue in this debate, and I urge to read both articles again, and then reassess the situation.
It is not about being a "better name" but rather the right to their own name (which they have chosen for themselves). Lunch for Two (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's article naming policies are not about their "own name they have chosen for themselves", or about what "the Greek users will or will not allow", but rather what is the most commonly used name in the literature. Athenean (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Athenean, you know very well that Greek users will not allow the "Slavic-speaker" of Greece to be ever changed to "ethnic Macedonians" of Greece. Ideally, Yes, Wikipedia does try to use the most common name used in literature, however in relation to Macedonian issues there are a series of terms which may not be the "most commonly used name in literature" however for the purposes of this project have been adopted by the Wikipedia community. (Take "Slavic dialects of Greece" which is an invented term used on Wikipedia only to artificially unite languages (Macedonian language in Greece and language of the Greek Pomaks); even though all of these dialects have some form of page on Wikipedia already (Solun-Voden dialect, Prilep-Bitola dialect, etc.) where they are assessed from a linguistic and not political viewpoint) Lunch for Two (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using "the Greek users" and their seeming omnipotence as an excuse to avoid having a discussion on the title is highly disingenuous. I think you give Greek users waaaaaaaaaaaaay to much credit here. If they were as powerful as you would have us believe, this article would called Republic of Skopje or something like that, and you know it. So enough already with all this stuff about "the Greek users would never allow it so let's not have a debate and call it what I want to call it and be done with it", this fools no one. There is absolutely no reason not to have a single article, and a frank debate about the title, rather than two POVFORKS. Athenean (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, there is merit in what I am saying regarding the strong lobby present on Wikipedia. Now that you have finally acknowledged that this article is a POVFORK, namely a "Greek-POV euphemism" as an ethnically Greek user here has already pointed out. Now, unless the name of this article is changed, I cannot see how this POV issue will be resolved. In fact there are many more sources in literature which point out this existence of "[ethnic (possibly Slav/ic])] Macedonians of/in/from Greece", or alternatively "Aegean Macedonians" as they are also widely known, then there are of the "Slavic-speakers of/in/from Greece".
I am just putting these here to highlight (of course is not definitive) the approach that literature has taken
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 359 hits on google books
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 712 hits
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 376 hits
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 69 hits
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 34 hits
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 7 hits
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 21 hits
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 0 hits (Although this is the name of the article, I only created it with that name ("ethnic" Macedonians) due to the fact that a Wikipedia arbitration has decided that all articles dealing with Macedonians, should use the term "ethnic Macedonians") - However in literature more widely, simply Macedonians is used (as is supported by the finding of this little exercise).

vs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 8 hits (+ One, which is a copy of the Wiki article)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 19 hits
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 1 hit
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 17 hits
  • If we are going to use literature as a guide about what to do, we are better off renaming this article to either "Ethnic Macedonians in Greece" (simply "Macedonians in Greece" would be the best option, however again this would conflict with the Wiki arbitration) or "Aegean Macedonians"; and then have a section regarding those who identify as Greeks and provide a link to here. Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia can be merged into the current article; if we are to use literature as a guide.
You may believe that the lobby is not that strong, however the fact that this article, with almost minimal references in literature, has been kept for so longer over much more mainstream terms, speaks for itself. Lunch for Two (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I'm still trying to figure out if these two articles are describing the same group of people or not. The discussion above seems to imply it is a single group, but has two different names, depending on the political inclination of the speaker. So my question is: Editors who believe that there should be two different articles, can you describe some groups of persons that are in the "Slavic speaking" group, but who are not in the "Ethnic Macedonian" group? Or vice versa: identify some groups of persons that are in the "Ethnic M" group but not in the "Slavic speaking" group? And, whatever your answer is, what is the magnitude of these "non intersection" groups? 1% of the the Slav speakers? 10%? --Noleander 03:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Reply - The magnitude of the non-intersect groups can be judged by the list of things which the ethnic Macedonians have done to self identify as such (posted above). It is quite a significant group.
There are groups who can be classified in the "slavic speaking" but not "ethnic Macedonian" category; these people espouse a local/regional consciousness, whilst others call themselves ethnic Greeks. However these people (in the latter category) have a sort of 'phantom' presence on the article which was merged with "Aegean Macedonians" (another name for ethnic Macedonians of Greece), in order to include these people. And by this I mean that this article mainly revolves around people with an ethnic Macedonian consciousness and their self-identification; however hardly mentions those people with a local affiliation or Greek affiliation (despite the fact that the name of "Slavic-speakers" is best suited to them). Lunch for Two (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander: Precise figures are hard to come by, but from what I know from the literature, there are an estimated ~200,000 Slavic-speakers, the vast majority of whom identify as "Slavophone Greeks". The number of Slavic-speakers with an ethnic Macedonian consciousness is again impossible to pin down, but has been estimated by human rights organizations (e.g. Greek Helsinki Monitor) at 10,000-30,000. This is based on extrapolating from the number of votes the ethnic Macedonian party "Rainbow" received in the 2004 elections (3,000-4,000 votes), while it hasn't participated in elections since 2004. As for all the magazines, newspapers and cultural organization as such that Lunch mentions, they are tiny and their circulation is small. By my own estimate, I would say roughly ~90% of Slavic speakers in Greek Macedonia identify as Greek, the remaining 10% as ethnic Macedonians. The 10,000-30,000 figure seems reasonable to me. As far as I know there are no non-Slavic speakers with an ethnic Macedonian consciousness. There is only one group of people, some of which now identify as Greeks, some not. But the language they speak is identical, ditto the customs and culture, and they have common ancestry. Most importantly, they are never treated as two separate groups in the literature. Athenean (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC
I have read that Nova Zora magazine has a circulation of 20,000; but that is not the main issue here, although it does dispute your claims regarding ethnic identity correlating with the results of Rainbow. It is impossible to put a figure on the number of people with a Macedonian, Greek or local identity. It is however, refreshing to see that Athenean does recognise that there is an ethnic Macedonian population living in Greek Macedonia; and only with recognition of this fact can any real debate occur.
It is true that many people of this group have been assimilated and now identify as Greeks. However, the presence of partly assimilated population groups does not facilitate the invention of new terms to describe them (as is the Wikipedia invention of "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia")
  • Take Poles in Germany. Here we have a large group of people some of which have a Polish identity, whilst roughly a million people of Polish descent (according to the article), whilst although not differing from the 'Polish identifying people of Polish descent' (in heritage, culture, etc.), now have another identity (presumably German).
  • Such a large population (~ 1,000,000) does not necessitate the creating of another page "Lechitic speakers of Germany" or "West Slavic speakers of Germany" (To 'avoid' the POV of calling them Poles), but these people are simply dealt with in the text of the page. Not only would coining new terms conflict with WP:NOR; but having to create a new term would be a POV inconsistent with the literature upon which Wikipedia is meant to be based (And by this I mean that literature, if notable enough a topic, should have its own terms to describe them already).
Given that we now agree that they are of the "same ancestry" (and it is obvious what this common non-Greek ancestry is), I dont see why we can't merge Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia into this article and have a WP:CONTENTFORK about those who do not identify as ethnic Macedonians, and link to either Ethnic Greeks or Macedonians (Greeks) (Preferred option). I also don't see why there cannot be a new chapter in Macedonians (Greeks) to deal with these ethnic Greeks with different Origins and Culture (these are two sub-chapters on that page), and to provide any notable information about the people with a Greek ethnic identity on that page.
  • Is this not an acceptable compromise? It leaves recognition of those persons with an ethnic Macedonian conscioussness whilst also providing detailed infomation on both (1 and 2) pages about persons with a Greek ethnic identity. I think that this is a fair compromise from both sides. Lunch for Two (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If you look at this situation, it's really not much different than the one with Iran and Azerbaijanis, because Macedonians have their own country like the Azerbaijanis. Yet however, indigenous Azerbaijanis are and have always been found in Iranian region of Azerbaijan, the same way that Ethnic Macedonians are indeginous to the Macedonian region of Greece. Remember, borders are a new invention after the world wars and these kind of issues are common in many places throughout the world today. We cannot deny a people's right to existence, just because maps were redrawn and for them being speakers from a different linguistic branch. Azeris are Turkic-speaking yet indiginous to the Azerbaijan region Iran in again the same way that Ethnic Macedonians are Slavic-speaking yet indigineous to the Macedonia region of Greece (I've done my research). I hope this helps some of you realize that it's pointless trying to deny someone's ethnic existence, even if it's only Wikipedia.(it doesn't make it any less hurtful). Remember, politics shouldn't also be involved in making our decisions on here. After all, there is a page on the Ethnic Azerbajanis of Iran, so why shouldn't there be one on the Ethnic Macedonians of Greece? My advice is to keep this page, but just make it well sourced and have editors review it that are far away from the conflict, so that there is a neutral unbiased approach to its form. You could also look into renaming it, "Greek Macedonians" is an option :) And good luck.--Xythianos (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This from the editor who nominated Tajik people for deletion [19] on the grounds that the existence of a separate article on Tajiks was "offensive to the Persian nation". Athenean (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reason 'User Lunch for Two' created his account 10 days ago (18 July 2011) [20] is to create a controversial article and then keep editing it irrespective of the AfD notice or past agreements {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lunch_for_Two}. His working knowledge of Wikipedia indicates, IMO, he has edited or perhaps is editing Wikipedia under a different name. If I am right, this could be a serious matter. If I am wrong, what is the explanation. Politis (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not aware of a Wikipedia policy which prevents users editing article which have an AfD on them. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cannot comment on Lunch for Two's past editing pattern, but his notion of "Ethnic Macedonians" in Greece is so terribly far in POV lands that his position is literally undistinguishable from that of the foreign department of the Republic of Macedonia. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can argue on this all you want, but I can just as easily say that your opinion is that of the Greek ministry of foreign affairs. Please don't make the same mistake that most Greeks do. Just because someone is Macedonian doesnt mean he is a nationalist, and likewise the fact that I am Greek does not mean my position will be that of Greece. Also I don't get how the notion of ethnic Macedonians in Greece is "POV", everyone knows they are there. They even have a party, if you remember, which got 7,000+ votes. --Philly boy92 (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can say that — as long as you don't forget to mention the 200+ foreign ministries which support Greece's position. Which makes your position extreme POV and that's the point of this AfD, isn't it? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which 200+ foreign ministries? I think that you'll find that most of the world's governments who have any interest in the matter are totally exasperated by this childish naming dispute. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Philly boy: I think it was more like 3,000-4,000 votes in the 2004 elections, which was the last one Rainbow participated in. Athenean (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'User:Lunch for Two' should probably be blocked[edit]

Is there an admin anywhere here? User:Lunch for Two should probably be blocked for bad faith edits, and his/her status as a potential Sock Puppet looked into. The user must know exactly what I am talking about. Politis (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Van Rossum[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC. Article was tagged to improve secondary sources to help establish notability, but tags were removed with only primary sources added. I have tried to search for reliable secondary sources to establish notability, but am unable to locate them. My search may be hindered by my inability to search in either French or Flemish, so I hope an editor capable in those languages will be able to turn up more reliable sources. But unless that happens, it appears that this musician does not yet have the notability required for an article on Wikipedia. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - No page on the Dutch WP about him. Notability seems questionable. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ron Van Rossum is a well known jazz piano player, especially in Belgium and Holland, but unfortunately he has no homepage. Where is the difference to this article about Hein Van de Geyn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hein_Van_de_Geyn ? No secondary sources are cited there. So if you remove Ron, please remove Hein as well, and many others... As I participated to a jazz workshop last week and met a range of famous Belgian jazz musicians, I was motivated to write articles about them in wikipedia, in English, German, French and Luxembourgian. My motivation has now fallen near to zero. --Christian Ries (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Christian Ries, if you feel that Van Rossum is notable, then please do provide reliable sources to indicate that. You may find the writings at WP:SOURCES useful in guiding your search for such sources. In terms of the other musician you mention, please review WP:WAX, and if another article is not appropriately sourced, please try to add reliable sources to it as well. If you are unable to locate such sources, then by all means nominate it for deletion as well. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there nobody else who has a comment or will this be decided by one admin alone? How about some contributors to the wikiproject jazz? By the way, I don't think it's a question of having a feeling about something. I know Mr. Van Rossum and I know a little bit about the Belgian Jazz Scene. I suppose the English Wikipedia is not restricted to west coast, east cost and her majesty's subjects? --Christian Ries (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As has been said above, the essential issue is to locate reliable sources demonstrating notability. I've found a couple of passing mentions at Allaboutjazz but essentially passing mention as sideman (e.g. Jack Bowers review) which isn't enough. Rather than speculate about restrictions on the English Wikipedia, better to seek out some references. AllyD (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of a lack of independent reliable secondary sources to establish notability. If Christian Ries or others believe I am in error here, please carefully review WP:MUSICBIO and explain in detail (with appropriate sources) how the subject meets at least one of the listed criteria. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk to me 16:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bush League (band)[edit]

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

no real notability shown for this band. releases not on important label, touring lacks coverage. prod removed without real improvement saying "Fixed some grammar errors and the Maurice link as Maurice (band). Note that a major member of Slint and Endpoint had played in this band while playing in their own respective bands at the time." Notability is not inhereted. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No indication from the article that the band passes WP:MUSIC, unless reliable independent sources can be found about their U.S. tour. This band is hard to search for on Google News & Books due to all the false positives that show up, but I made a reasonable effort nonetheless. I couldn't find anything about them, tour or otherwise. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ... local band ... headlining shows at local venues ... opened for touring bands ... toured the Midwest and Southeast. 3 EPs, no Charts. Regarding a major member of Slint had played in the band - from David Pajo: ... is best known for his guitar work ... has contributed to many line-ups, playing and recording with ... (11 bands). This band doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (music).--Ben Ben (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Courcelles 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Aldershot[edit]

List of bus routes in Aldershot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a place for travel guides - that is what Wikitravel is for. Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my nomination for those who may not have read the specific guidance in WP:NOTDIR - WP:NOTGUIDE states that travel guide content belongs at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A simple list of bus routes is neither a directory or a Travel Guide. Re WP:NOTDIR. A list of bus routes is not "Genealogical entries", "The White or Yellow Pages", "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business", "Sales catalogs", "Changelogs or release notes", "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations", "A complete exposition of all possible details" nor really a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", so WP:NOTDIR does not have any points within that a list of bus routes would contravene. Re WP:NOTGUIDE, I won't list all the points again, but the only one that could be argued a list of bus routes is against is point 2, "Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide". However, this is referring more to using Wikipedia as a sort of holiday travel guide with tourist destinations, restaurant, hotel or venue as it says in the text. You wouldn't use a list of bus routes to actually plan a trip out on the bus, therefore a list of bus routes is not a Travel Guide. You'd need the complete bus timetable for it to be anywhere near a travel guide. Arriva436talk/contribs 18:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a revised List of bus routes in Hampshire. This would be a county-wide list, to match the formats of the other List of bus routes in England. Arriva436talk/contribs 12:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - is there a particular reason why all of these have been nominated separately?? It would have made it much easier if there was a joint nomination. Arriva436talk/contribs 12:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there such a thing? I agree, if it could be done it would be better. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent sources have been provided. The only sources provided are the web sites of the companies that operate these bus routes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. It is not a universal list of bus routes, nor should it be. There are places on the internet where this information may be rapidly obtained, riders do not and should not be coming to Wikipedia for this information. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK then, if you actually check, you will find that "There are places on the Internet where this information may be rapidly obtained" is completely wrong, and that actually this information is very hard to find all in one place, especially for Hampshire-wide information. Unless of course you did actually check before making such a statement, and you can give a link that will show the same information in a similar format...? Besides, why should information about buses not be included on Wikipedia, when 1) there is no policy against it and 2) There is far more information about train, ferry and plane services, meaning without buses there's an odd hole in coverage? Arriva436talk/contribs 19:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you're saying this should be kept since it's valid original research that can't be found elsewhere?!? Lists of bus routes is pretty much a textbook definition of unencyclopedic local cruft. Carrite (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If lists of bus routes were "textbook definitions of unencyclopaedic local cruft" then they would be mentioned, explicitly or implicitly, in at least one of the pages we have giving examples of things that Wikipedia is not for. However, they don't appear in such lists because they are neither unencyclopaedic nor cruft - unless you are going to present any evidence to the contrary? Many of these list of bus route articles are sourced, none of the others has been shown to be unsourceable. Just because there is no single place on the internet that gives easily accessed encyclopaedic coverage of a subject does not mean that we should delete our coverage of the topic - indeed our job is to be that single, easily accessed provider of encyclopaedic coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we delete all our articles in case they are out-of-date? I found several sources in two minutes, I'm sure others might improve on this in the future.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have add sources that show bus routes in Aldershot are notable. Perhaps rename to Bus services in Aldershot or merge to List of bus routes in Hampshire, but there is no reason to delete.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appropriate and standard article. If it listed times and bus stops, it might be a directory. But it doesn't. Relevant gazeteer-like encyclopedic information a/c policy. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominating 8 "list of bus routes in ..." LISTS, with 'rubberstamp' rationals, separately was pointless. If your rational was the same in all of them, why not do a single AFD for the Group of them. All my keep reasons are stated in the currently ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a perfectly notable article which just needs a little expansion, is all. Rcsprinter (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (although I wouldn't object to a merge, it would imho be second best). This is a perfectly encyclopaedic, referenced list. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) for a detailed refutation of the arguments that WP:NOT disallows lists of bus routes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per my comments here, I disagree with the nomination statement. It's also sourced and does not include useless information. Could do with a more in depth lead but certainly shouldn't be deleted. WormTT · (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with other similar articles into List of bus routes in Hampshire. Delete rationales that such lists are intrisically against policy are misguided since none of the cited policies prohibit such information provided it can be verified, which it can (kudos to Pontificalibus for the independent refs btw). Merge because the town has fairly few bus routes, many of which run into other areas of the county and are duplicated in other such articles (e.g. route 1 is also listed in List of bus routes in Farnborough & Fleet area). Contracted routes are operated under contract to Hampshire county council (not a smaller division), the available sources seem to cover the entire county and other similarly sized counties are covered in single lists. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge may be a viable option, discussion should continue on the talk page. Courcelles 03:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Alton, Bordon and Tadley area[edit]

List of bus routes in Alton, Bordon and Tadley area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a place for travel guides - that is what Wikitravel is for. Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my nomination for those who may not have read the specific guidance in WP:NOTDIR - WP:NOTGUIDE states that travel guide content belongs at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A simple list of bus routes is neither a directory or a Travel Guide. Re WP:NOTDIR. A list of bus routes is not "Genealogical entries", "The White or Yellow Pages", "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business", "Sales catalogs", "Changelogs or release notes", "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations", "A complete exposition of all possible details" nor really a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", so WP:NOTDIR does not have any points within that a list of bus routes would contravene. Re WP:NOTGUIDE, I won't list all the points again, but the only one that could be argued a list of bus routes is against is point 2, "Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide". However, this is referring more to using Wikipedia as a sort of holiday travel guide with tourist destinations, restaurant, hotel or venue as it says in the text. You wouldn't use a list of bus routes to actually plan a trip out on the bus, therefore a list of bus routes is not a Travel Guide. You'd need the complete bus timetable for it to be anywhere near a travel guide. Arriva436talk/contribs 18:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion.  Adam mugliston  Talk  11:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for a keep. Show me one substantial, independently published source for ANY of these Original Research Bus Route Cruft pieces, please. Carrite (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into a revised List of bus routes in Hampshire. That article would match the other List of bus routes in England and be a county-wide list. Arriva436talk/contribs 12:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources have been provided at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source will be provided soon. I am currently going round articles I created, referencing them and satisfying colouring issues. I will need some time, but please see my user page for progress towards this.  Adam mugliston  Talk  15:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not to say sources are not readily and easily available. Travelne South West being an obvious independent source... Arriva436talk/contribs 19:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, of course, I know that. It's just I can't do them all at once. I didn't think Traveline would be an independent source. Thanks.  Adam mugliston  Talk  19:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. It is not a universal list of bus routes, nor should it be. There are places on the internet where this information may be rapidly obtained, riders do not and should not be coming to Wikipedia for this information. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK then, if you actually check, you will find that "There are places on the Internet where this information may be rapidly obtained" is completely wrong, and that actually this information is very hard to find all in one place, especially for Hampshire-wide information. Unless of course you did actually check before making such a statement, and you can give a link that will show the same information in a similar format...? Besides, why should information about buses not be included on Wikipedia, when 1) there is no policy against it and 2) There is far more information about train, ferry and plane services, meaning without buses there's an odd hole in coverage? Arriva436talk/contribs 19:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you're saying this should be kept since it's valid original research that can't be found elsewhere?!? Lists of bus routes is pretty much a textbook definition of unencyclopedic local cruft. Carrite (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If lists of bus routes were "textbook definitions of unencyclopaedic local cruft" then they would be mentioned, explicitly or implicitly, in at least one of the pages we have giving examples of things that Wikipedia is not for. However, they don't appear in such lists because they are neither unencyclopaedic nor cruft - unless you are going to present any evidence to the contrary? Many of these list of bus route articles are sourced, none of the others has been shown to be unsourceable. Just because there is no single place on the internet that gives easily accessed encyclopaedic coverage of a subject does not mean that we should delete our coverage of the topic - indeed our job is to be that single, easily accessed provider of encyclopaedic coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just being the list is a normal article. It is not indiscriminate or over-detailed unless it starts listing the detailed routes. I am unable to understand the opposition to these articles if someone wants to maintain them. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominating 8 "list of bus routes in ..." LISTS, with 'rubberstamp' rationals, separately was pointless. If your rational was the same in all of them, why not do a single AFD for the Group of them. All my keep reasons are stated in the currently ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a perfectly notable article which just needs a little expansion, is all. Rcsprinter (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the information but possibly reorganise (merge or split), as it's not clear whether Alton, Bordon and Tadley are a cohesive area for the purposes of bus service provision. If they aren't then the content should be reorganised to better match such coherent area(s). Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) for a detailed refutation of the arguments that WP:NOTDIR disallows lists of bus routes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Per my comments [21], I disagree with the nomination statement. The article does need sourcing though. WormTT · (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with other similar articles into List of bus routes in Hampshire. Delete rationales that such lists are intrisically against policy are misguided since none of the cited policies prohibit such information provided it can be verified, which it can. Merge because the area has fairly few bus routes most of which run into other areas of the county and are duplicated in other such articles (e.g. route 64 is also listed in Bus routes in Winchester, Hampshire), many of the routes are operated under contract to Hampshire county council (not a smaller division), the available sources seem to cover the entire county and because that's how other counties are covered. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge may be a viable option, discussion should continue on the talk page. Courcelles 03:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Andover[edit]

List of bus routes in Andover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a place for travel guides - that is what Wikitravel is for. Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my nomination for those who may not have read the specific guidance in WP:NOTDIR - WP:NOTGUIDE states that travel guide content belongs at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A simple list of bus routes is neither a directory or a Travel Guide. Re WP:NOTDIR. A list of bus routes is not "Genealogical entries", "The White or Yellow Pages", "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business", "Sales catalogs", "Changelogs or release notes", "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations", "A complete exposition of all possible details" nor really a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", so WP:NOTDIR does not have any points within that a list of bus routes would contravene. Re WP:NOTGUIDE, I won't list all the points again, but the only one that could be argued a list of bus routes is against is point 2, "Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide". However, this is referring more to using Wikipedia as a sort of holiday travel guide with tourist destinations, restaurant, hotel or venue as it says in the text. You wouldn't use a list of bus routes to actually plan a trip out on the bus, therefore a list of bus routes is not a Travel Guide. You'd need the complete bus timetable for it to be anywhere near a travel guide. Arriva436talk/contribs 18:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion.  Adam mugliston  Talk  11:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for a keep. Show me one substantial, independently published source for ANY of these Original Research Bus Route Cruft pieces, please. Carrite (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a revised List of bus routes in Hampshire, a county-wide article to match with all of the other List of bus routes in England. Arriva436talk/contribs 12:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. It is not a universal list of bus routes, nor should it be. There are places on the internet where this information may be rapidly obtained, riders do not and should not be coming to Wikipedia for this information. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK then, if you actually check, you will find that "There are places on the Internet where this information may be rapidly obtained" is completely wrong, and that actually this information is very hard to find all in one place, especially for Hampshire-wide information. Unless of course you did actually check before making such a statement, and you can give a link that will show the same information in a similar format...? Besides, why should information about buses not be included on Wikipedia, when 1) there is no policy against it and 2) There is far more information about train, ferry and plane services, meaning without buses there's an odd hole in coverage? Arriva436talk/contribs 19:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you're saying this should be kept since it's valid original research that can't be found elsewhere?!? Lists of bus routes are pretty much a textbook definition of unencyclopedic local cruft. Carrite (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If lists of bus routes were "textbook definitions of unencyclopaedic local cruft" then they would be mentioned, explicitly or implicitly, in at least one of the pages we have giving examples of things that Wikipedia is not for. However, they don't appear in such lists because they are neither unencyclopaedic nor cruft - unless you are going to present any evidence to the contrary? Many of these list of bus route articles are sourced, none of the others has been shown to be unsourceable. Just because there is no single place on the internet that gives easily accessed encyclopaedic coverage of a subject does not mean that we should delete our coverage of the topic - indeed our job is to be that single, easily accessed provider of encyclopaedic coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is most unlikely that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources will ever be found for this material. The article fails General Notability Guideline, Notability of Standalone Lists guideline, Wikipedia is not a Directory, Wikipedia Stand Alone List Guideline Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide and Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. If this sort of material is kept it is always liable to become outdated and a source of misinformation if editors concerned lose interest. Even if we have legal indemnity against any unfortunate consequences of providing wrong data we have a moral responsibility to avoid doing so, not to mention the potential damage to WP's reputation. It is not just a case of not liking it as there are sound reasons for not keeping it.--Charles (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I lose interest, I'll make sure I put an AfD tag on this article. But for know, I'm fully interested and will continue to update regularly. And please stop quoting WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL, as we have already established, these have nothing to do with a list of bus routes. Also WP:IINFO does not mention bus routes or anything related to travel.  Adam mugliston  Talk  20:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You do not own this article.--Charles (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course I don't. All I'm saying is, I'm still interested and I will update it, so I am an editor who is not losing interest, meaning the outdated problem is solved. Plus, per WP:NNC, GNG does not have to be satisfied.  Adam mugliston  Talk  20:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just being the list without excessive timetable or fare details makes this a normal article. It is not indiscriminate or over-detailed unless it starts listing the detailed routes. I am unable to understand the opposition to these articles if someone wants to maintain them. I similarly am unable to see that they are more functional in a combined article, though iI would not rule that out as a possibility if it would satisfy the objections. The important thing is the content, not the division into articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominating 8 "list of bus routes in ..." LISTS, with 'rubberstamp' rationals, separately was pointless. If your rational was the same in all of them, why not do a single AFD for the Group of them. All my keep reasons are stated in the currently ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a perfectly encyclopaedic (partially) referenced list. Indeed it's better than some other lists around, although I'd prefer to see less emphasis on the current operating hours in favour of a discussion of them historically, this is a content issue (which might be better in a different article) that does not warrant deletion, just the normal editing and discussion processes. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) for a detailed refutation of the arguments that WP:NOTDIR disallows lists of bus routes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page needs a prune, removing timetables and some other frivolous information. However per my comments here I disagree with the nomination statement. WormTT · (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with other similar articles into List of bus routes in Hampshire. Delete rationales that such lists are intrisically against policy are misguided since none of the cited policies prohibit such information provided it can be verified, which it can. Merge because the town has fairly few bus routes, some of which run into other areas of the county and are duplicated in other such articles (e.g. route 76 is also listed in List of bus routes in Basingstoke). Contracted routes are operated under contract to Hampshire county council (not a smaller division), the available sources seem to cover the entire county and other similar sized counties are covered as single lists. The minute route detail isn't necessary, just the main list. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge may be a viable option, discussion should continue on the talk page. Courcelles 03:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Eastleigh & Romsey[edit]

List of bus routes in Eastleigh & Romsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a place for travel guides - that is what Wikitravel is for. Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my nomination for those who may not have read the specific guidance in WP:NOTDIR - WP:NOTGUIDE states that travel guide content belongs at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A simple list of bus routes is neither a directory or a Travel Guide. Re WP:NOTDIR. A list of bus routes is not "Genealogical entries", "The White or Yellow Pages", "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business", "Sales catalogs", "Changelogs or release notes", "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations", "A complete exposition of all possible details" nor really a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", so WP:NOTDIR does not have any points within that a list of bus routes would contravene. Re WP:NOTGUIDE, I won't list all the points again, but the only one that could be argued a list of bus routes is against is point 2, "Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide". However, this is referring more to using Wikipedia as a sort of holiday travel guide with tourist destinations, restaurant, hotel or venue as it says in the text. You wouldn't use a list of bus routes to actually plan a trip out on the bus, therefore a list of bus routes is not a Travel Guide. You'd need the complete bus timetable for it to be anywhere near a travel guide. Arriva436talk/contribs 18:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Keep - IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion.  Adam mugliston  Talk  11:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for a keep. Show me one substantial, independently published source for ANY of these Original Research Bus Route Cruft pieces, please. Carrite (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a revised List of bus routes in Hampshire, a county-wide article to match with all of the other List of bus routes in England. Arriva436talk/contribs 12:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. It is not a universal list of bus routes, nor should it be. There are places on the internet where this information may be rapidly obtained, riders do not and should not be coming to Wikipedia for this information. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK then, if you actually check, you will find that "There are places on the Internet where this information may be rapidly obtained" is completely wrong, and that actually this information is very hard to find all in one place, especially for Hampshire-wide information. Unless of course you did actually check before making such a statement, and you can give a link that will show the same information in a similar format...? Besides, why should information about buses not be included on Wikipedia, when 1) there is no policy against it and 2) There is far more information about train, ferry and plane services, meaning without buses there's an odd hole in coverage? Arriva436talk/contribs 19:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you're saying this should be kept since it's valid original research that can't be found elsewhere?!? Lists of bus routes are pretty much a textbook definition of unencyclopedic local cruft. Carrite (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If lists of bus routes were "textbook definitions of unencyclopaedic local cruft" then they would be mentioned, explicitly or implicitly, in at least one of the pages we have giving examples of things that Wikipedia is not for. However, they don't appear in such lists because they are neither unencyclopaedic nor cruft - unless you are going to present any evidence to the contrary? Many of these list of bus route articles are sourced, none of the others has been shown to be unsourceable. Just because there is no single place on the internet that gives easily accessed encyclopaedic coverage of a subject does not mean that we should delete our coverage of the topic - indeed our job is to be that single, easily accessed provider of encyclopaedic coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just being the list without having excessive timetable details makes this a normal article. It is not indiscriminate or over-detailed unless it starts listing the detailed routes. I am unable to understand the opposition to these articles if someone wants to maintain them. I similarly am unable to see that they are more functional in a combined article, though iI would not rule that out as a possibility if it would satisfy the objections. The important thing is the content, not the division into articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominating 8 "list of bus routes in ..." LISTS, with 'rubberstamp' rationals, separately was pointless. If your rational was the same in all of them, why not do a single AFD for the Group of them. All my keep reasons are stated in the currently ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a perfectly notable article which just needs a little expansion, is all. Rcsprinter (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a perfectly encyclopaedic referenced list. Yes, it needs a bit of work on colour and it could (and should) be expanded but these are not reasons for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) for a detailed refutation of the arguments that WP:NOTDIR disallows lists of bus routes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per my comments [22], I disagree with the nomination statement. Though the article needs improvement, I do not see that it needs deletion. WormTT · (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with other similar articles into List of bus routes in Hampshire. Delete rationales that such lists are intrisically against policy are misguided since none of the cited policies prohibit such information provided it can be verified, which it can. Merge because the town has fairly few bus routes, some of which run into other areas of the county and are duplicated in other such articles (half of the routes in Eastleigh also serve Winchester and/or Southampton and are listed in their articles too). Contracted routes are operated under contract to Hampshire county council (not a smaller division), the available sources seem to cover the entire county and other similar sized counties are covered as single lists. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge may be a viable option, discussion should continue on the talk page. Courcelles 03:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Petersfield & Bishop's Waltham[edit]

List of bus routes in Petersfield & Bishop's Waltham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a place for travel guides - that is what Wikitravel is for. Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my nomination for those who may not have read the specific guidance in WP:NOTDIR - WP:NOTGUIDE states that travel guide content belongs at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A simple list of bus routes is neither a directory or a Travel Guide. Re WP:NOTDIR. A list of bus routes is not "Genealogical entries", "The White or Yellow Pages", "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business", "Sales catalogs", "Changelogs or release notes", "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations", "A complete exposition of all possible details" nor really a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", so WP:NOTDIR does not have any points within that a list of bus routes would contravene. Re WP:NOTGUIDE, I won't list all the points again, but the only one that could be argued a list of bus routes is against is point 2, "Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide". However, this is referring more to using Wikipedia as a sort of holiday travel guide with tourist destinations, restaurant, hotel or venue as it says in the text. You wouldn't use a list of bus routes to actually plan a trip out on the bus, therefore a list of bus routes is not a Travel Guide. You'd need the complete bus timetable for it to be anywhere near a travel guide. Arriva436talk/contribs 18:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion.  Adam mugliston  Talk  11:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for a keep. Show me one substantial, independently published source for ANY of these Original Research Bus Route Cruft pieces, please. Carrite (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a revised List of bus routes in Hampshire, a county-wide article to match with all of the other List of bus routes in England. Arriva436talk/contribs 12:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. It is not a universal list of bus routes, nor should it be. There are places on the internet where this information may be rapidly obtained, riders do not and should not be coming to Wikipedia for this information. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK then, if you actually check, you will find that "There are places on the Internet where this information may be rapidly obtained" is completely wrong, and that actually this information is very hard to find all in one place, especially for Hampshire-wide information. Unless of course you did actually check before making such a statement, and you can give a link that will show the same information in a similar format...? Besides, why should information about buses not be included on Wikipedia, when 1) there is no policy against it and 2) There is far more information about train, ferry and plane services, meaning without buses there's an odd hole in coverage? Arriva436talk/contribs 19:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you're saying this should be kept since it's valid original research that can't be found elsewhere?!? Lists of bus routes are pretty much a textbook definition of unencyclopedic local cruft. Carrite (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If lists of bus routes were "textbook definitions of unencyclopaedic local cruft" then they would be mentioned, explicitly or implicitly, in at least one of the pages we have giving examples of things that Wikipedia is not for. However, they don't appear in such lists because they are neither unencyclopaedic nor cruft - unless you are going to present any evidence to the contrary? Many of these list of bus route articles are sourced, none of the others has been shown to be unsourceable. Just because there is no single place on the internet that gives easily accessed encyclopaedic coverage of a subject does not mean that we should delete our coverage of the topic - indeed our job is to be that single, easily accessed provider of encyclopaedic coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As well as the many reasons already listed, I defy anyone to find a single reliable source that links Petersfield and Bishops Waltham for anything, let alone bus services, so the aggregating = original research. Nuttah (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just being the list without having excessive timetable details makes this a normal article. It is not indiscriminate or over-detailed unless it starts listing the detailed routes. I am unable to understand the opposition to these articles if someone wants to maintain them. I similarly am unable to see that they are more functional in a combined article, though iI would not rule that out as a possibility if it would satisfy the objections. The important thing is the content, not the division into articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominating 8 "list of bus routes in ..." LISTS, with 'rubberstamp' rationals, separately was pointless. If your rational was the same in all of them, why not do a single AFD for the Group of them. All my keep reasons are stated in the currently ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a perfectly notable article which just needs a little expansion, is all. And cleanup. Rcsprinter (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a perfectly encyclopaedic list. Yes it needs references, but given the references present in the other Hampshire bus routes articles it seems very likely that such sources exist. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) for a detailed refutation of the arguments that WP:NOTDIR disallows lists of bus routes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That does not answer the original research concerns though. The two towns in question have nothing in common apart from being at the opposite ends of one 20 mile long bus route. Elsewhere the original editor has admitted that he has constructed the groupings for his convenience rather than for any logical or referable purpose. This is vastly different to the Peterborough article where at least you can say there is a logic in grouping the routes by the unitary authority that would be responsible for subsidising underused services. Nuttah (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that is the case then the articles should be split into separate areas and/or merged with the coherent area(s) of services that they are part of. It is not a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I may have made a mistake in grouping. I agree the Bishop's Waltham section should probably be merged into Eastleigh & Romsey, while Petersfield could be merged into Alton, Bordon and Tadley, remade into Alton, Bordon and Petersfield, with a new article created Tadley & Newbury or Tadley could be incorporated into Basingstoke or Reading (which I am planning on creating).  Adam mugliston  Talk  17:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're still not understanding WP:OR. You don't get to make up how they are grouped, it has to be based on a logic, that can be referenced. Sticking to the tier of local government that is making subsidy decisions would probably provide references as they will discuss bus services in x. For Hampshire that is Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton councils. Nuttah (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please stop accusing me of not understanding things, as you seem to be suggesting I am some sort of idiot who can't read and understand. I am very logical in the way I group the towns, they are all neighbouring towns that each have at least 5-7 bus routes, some of them running between either 2 or 3 of the towns the list is about. I can easily offer a operator or council map showing the routes and the proximity of the towns, yet still you haven't commented on that.  Adam mugliston  Talk  19:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • It doesn't matter if you can show a map with the routes on - you have to show that someone other than you, in an independent reliable source, has treated that group of routes as a single entity. You CANNOT invent groupings to suit you. Nuttah (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ok, then do you think a list of bus routes in just say Petersfield, would survive?! And you haven't even been commenting on the content of this article, which is what is the main part of this and to what everyone else is relating to. A title really doesn't matter, as long as it quickly sums up what's inside.  Adam mugliston  Talk  20:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Can you reference a Petersfield article? Back to WP:OR again - it is one of only three policies on Wikipedia and is very clear 'To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented.'. For your articles to be not OR they must be based on independent reliable sources discussing bus routes in area x - not routes grouped together based on your opinion, that is OR. I've already given a way out of this, the top tier of local government will discuss buses by area as part of the subsidy process, thus providing independent references - in the county of Hampshire there are three top tier councils, Hampshire and the unitary authorities in Portsmouth and Southampton. Nuttah (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Hampshire is too big an area for one list of bus routes. I have asked you a question before: Will a list of bus routes in only Petersfield survive? I don't think so, it's too short. That is why I need to group them in some way. All it is, is two towns in one article, each having their own seperate lists. I think this conversation might as well end, as you seem to be rather stuck on saying OR.  Adam mugliston  Talk  07:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The reason I keep on about OR is simple, following the rule is not optional. You must source the groupings, if you cannot the policy is clear 'If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it'. However, as you will not accept this we will let AfD run then take the suspect articles to the OR noticeboard to get an opinion on the way forward. As for Hampshire being to big, London with many more routes serving very many more people gets by perfectly well list one list Nuttah (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Like with the other bus list afds, this is a perfectly valid standalone list of routes of a major bus system in a major city. Bus routes are integral parts of the workings of a city and that is very encyclopedic. I see "WP is not a directory" quotes frequently in bus route nominations but there is actually nothing in WP:DIRECTORY that bans list articles, nor list articles of bus routes. This isn't a "repositories of loosely associated topics" or anything of the like and this list is very discriminate. --Oakshade (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'major bus system in a major city'. I don't think so, Petersfield has a population of just over 13,000 and that's twice as big as Bishops Waltham. Nuttah (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You do have a point about the populations and I admit, just as all of these afd's were cut-and-paste jobs, my input here was almost the same. But the comments about the validity of the bus routes list remains. --Oakshade (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would question that the comments are still valid. Bus routes may be a suitable topic, splitting them down into ever smaller groupings, especially into groupings that have no connection and have no reliable sourcing available makes them indiscriminate. Nuttah (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per my comments [23] I disagree with the nomination statement. The article does require sourcing though WormTT · (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge may be a viable option, discussion should continue on the talk page. Courcelles 03:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Southampton[edit]

List of bus routes in Southampton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a place for travel guides - that is what Wikitravel is for. Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my nomination for those who may not have read the specific guidance in WP:NOTDIR - WP:NOTGUIDE states that travel guide content belongs at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that policy makes no mention of transport infrastructure such as bus routes, as the first two sentences make clear: "An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like." This article is already compliant with these requirements - the bus companies' addresses and telephone numbers aren't listed, are they? Alzarian16 (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per Alzarin16, the polcies you quote make no mention of public transport. A simple list of bus routes is neither a directory or a Travel Guide. Re WP:NOTDIR. A list of bus routes is not "Genealogical entries", "The White or Yellow Pages", "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business", "Sales catalogs", "Changelogs or release notes", "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations", "A complete exposition of all possible details" nor really a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", so WP:NOTDIR does not have any points within that a list of bus routes would contravene. Re WP:NOTGUIDE, I won't list all the points again, but the only one that could be argued a list of bus routes is against is point 2, "Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide". However, this is referring more to using Wikipedia as a sort of holiday travel guide with tourist destinations, restaurant, hotel or venue as it says in the text. You wouldn't use a list of bus routes to actually plan a trip out on the bus, therefore a list of bus routes is not a Travel Guide. You'd need the complete bus timetable for it to be anywhere near a travel guide. Arriva436talk/contribs 18:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Keep - IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion.  Adam mugliston  Talk  11:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for a keep. Show me one substantial, independently published source for ANY of these Original Research Bus Route Cruft pieces, please. Carrite (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a revised List of bus routes in Hampshire, a county-wide article to match with all of the other List of bus routes in England. Arriva436talk/contribs 12:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia." - what? Where on earth does this appear in policy? Using this logic, every article about buses - including four GAs, one of which is about an individual route - would be deleted. If you really feel that minority interests shouldn't be represented, why did you write List of artists who have performed at the Colston Hall, which gets less than one-third of the views that this article gets? This smacks of bias bordering on personal attacks, and should be ignored by the closing admin. And it's been copied across ten of these AfDs! There are plenty of good reasons why this article either shouldn't exist or should be rewritten in a different format, but this is not one of them. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice bit of canvassing by the way. WP:CANVASS explicity states that "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." Providing a non-neutral note only to a user who has called for the deletion of all such lists while failing to notify users who support them will do this debate no favours in the long run.
  • For my part, I would like to see the content in this article condensed down to a minimum and moved to a prose article on Buses in Southampton, a mainstream encyclopedic topic about which masses of material has been published. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. It is not a universal list of bus routes, nor should it be. There are places on the internet where this information may be rapidly obtained, riders do not and should not be coming to Wikipedia for this information. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK then, if you actually check, you will find that "There are places on the Internet where this information may be rapidly obtained" is completely wrong, and that actually this information is very hard to find all in one place, especially for Hampshire-wide information. Unless of course you did actually check before making such a statement, and you can give a link that will show the same information in a similar format...? Besides, why should information about buses not be included on Wikipedia, when 1) there is no policy against it and 2) There is far more information about train, ferry and plane services, meaning without buses there's an odd hole in coverage? Arriva436talk/contribs 19:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you're saying this should be kept since it's valid original research that can't be found elsewhere?!? Lists of bus routes are pretty much a textbook definition of unencyclopedic local cruft. Carrite (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If lists of bus routes were "textbook definitions of unencyclopaedic local cruft" then they would be mentioned, explicitly or implicitly, in at least one of the pages we have giving examples of things that Wikipedia is not for. However, they don't appear in such lists because they are neither unencyclopaedic nor cruft - unless you are going to present any evidence to the contrary? Many of these list of bus route articles are sourced, none of the others has been shown to be unsourceable. Just because there is no single place on the internet that gives easily accessed encyclopaedic coverage of a subject does not mean that we should delete our coverage of the topic - indeed our job is to be that single, easily accessed provider of encyclopaedic coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should I really have to point out that content existing elsewhere is not a reason for deletion but a fundamental requirement of all content on Wikipedia, as WP:V and WP:OR make explicity clear? If sources didn't exist, that would be a good reason for deletion. But they do. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • May I just add that I am currently working on a new revamped, better looking, referenced version of the list, that will include elements of prose. This should be ready by tomorrow afternoon.  Adam mugliston  Talk  19:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is most unlikely that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources will ever be found for this material. The article fails General Notability Guideline, Notability of Standalone Lists guideline, Wikipedia is not a Directory, Wikipedia Stand Alone List Guideline Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide and Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. If this sort of material is kept it is always liable to become outdated and a source of misinformation if editors concerned lose interest. Even if we have legal indemnity against any unfortunate consequences of providing wrong data we have a moral responsibility to avoid doing so, not to mention the potential damage to WP's reputation. It is not just a case of not liking it as there are sound reasons for not keeping it.--Charles (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Like with similar articles up for afd, this is a perfectly valid standalone list of routes of a major bus system in a major city. Bus routes are integral parts of the workings of a city infrastructure and that is very encyclopedic. I see "WP is not a directory" quotes frequently in bus route nominations but there is actually nothing in WP:DIRECTORY that bans list articles, nor list articles of bus routes. This isn't a "repositories of loosely associated topics" or anything of the like and this list is very discriminate. I also notice the nom and the delete voters are simply stating lists of bus routes are unencyclopedic in general and not making a case to delete this list article of this specific city's bus routes, yet again they haven't touched the List of bus routes in London List of bus routes in Manhattan or the like which one would imagine are much more colossal violations of encyclopedic content to those who don't like bust list articles. --Oakshade (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just being the list without having excessive timetable details makes this a normal article. It is not indiscriminate or over-detailed unless it starts listing the detailed routes. I am unable to understand the opposition to these articles if someone wants to maintain them. I particularly don't see the point of deletion when its a major city like this one. It's only a travel guide if it has the schedule and prices--some bus route articles in the past have had them, and that is probably unjustifiable. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominating 8 "list of bus routes in ..." LISTS, with 'rubberstamp' rationals, separately was pointless. If your rational was the same in all of them, why not do a single AFD for the Group of them. All my keep reasons are stated in the currently ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a perfectly notable article which just needs a little expansion, is all. Rcsprinter (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a perfectly encyclopaedic list. Yes it needs referencing (but sources are very likely to exist, given the presence of them for rural parts of Hampshire, and Southampton is an important city), expansion and work on colour. None of these are reasons to delete though. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) for a detailed refutation of the arguments that WP:NOTDIR disallows lists of bus routes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Per my comments [24] I disagree with the nomination statement. The article does require sourcing though. WormTT · (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am currently collecting sources in my userspace.  Adam mugliston  Talk  09:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge may be a viable option, discussion should continue on the talk page. Courcelles 03:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Portsmouth area[edit]

List of bus routes in Portsmouth area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a place for travel guides - that is what Wikitravel is for. Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my nomination for those who may not have read the specific guidance in WP:NOTDIR - WP:NOTGUIDE states that travel guide content belongs at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A simple list of bus routes is neither a directory or a Travel Guide. Re WP:NOTDIR. A list of bus routes is not "Genealogical entries", "The White or Yellow Pages", "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business", "Sales catalogs", "Changelogs or release notes", "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations", "A complete exposition of all possible details" nor really a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", so WP:NOTDIR does not have any points within that a list of bus routes would contravene. Re WP:NOTGUIDE, I won't list all the points again, but the only one that could be argued a list of bus routes is against is point 2, "Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide". However, this is referring more to using Wikipedia as a sort of holiday travel guide with tourist destinations, restaurant, hotel or venue as it says in the text. You wouldn't use a list of bus routes to actually plan a trip out on the bus, therefore a list of bus routes is not a Travel Guide. You'd need the complete bus timetable for it to be anywhere near a travel guide. Arriva436talk/contribs 18:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Keep - IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion.  Adam mugliston  Talk  11:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for a keep. Show me one substantial, independently published source for ANY of these Original Research Bus Route Cruft pieces, please. Carrite (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a revised List of bus routes in Hampshire, a county-wide article to match with all of the other List of bus routes in England. Arriva436talk/contribs 12:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is there a particular reason why all of these have been nominated seperately? It would have made it much eaiser if there was a joint nomination. Arriva436talk/contribs 12:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia." - what? Where on earth does this appear in policy? Using this logic, every article about buses - including four GAs, one of which is about an individual route - would be deleted. If you really feel that minority interests shouldn't be represented, why did you write List of artists who have performed at the Colston Hall, which gets less than one-third of the views that this article gets? This smacks of personal bias, and should be ignored by the closing admin. And it's been copied across ten of these AfDs! There are plenty of good reasons why this article either shouldn't exist or should be rewritten in a different format, but this is not one of them. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Buses in Portsmouth, another important prose topic that remains redlinked despite the presence of multiple sources. The list itself should form part of that article, with a small amount of the current level of detail removed. If we can get consensus for this I'll do the rewrite myself unless someone else wants to. (Overtaken by events.) Alzarian16 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is currently on my to-do list. I was planning on remaking this article to contain prose and the list, as soon as I finish revamping Southampton, so I will happily do it.  Adam mugliston  Talk  15:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, turns out there was enough content on this that I decided to write a new article at that title. My !vote now becomes merge, probably to List of bus routes in Hampshire, for basically the same reasons that I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Eastleigh & Romsey among others. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're making the same OR flaw as the article in discussion. Gosport and Fareham are separate towns, not part of Portsmouth. Gosport has never had a bus link to Portsmouth, Fareham has as many to Southampton as it does Portsmouth. Provincial, until taken over by Southampton never ran services in Portsmouth. The fact the First centre there southern division on Southampton does not link the histories. Additionally, PCT was a post 1988 company, not pre 1988. From 1936 until then it was city of portsmouth passenger transport department [25] Nuttah (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I don't follow at all? Are you talking about the new Buses in Portsmouth article? If so, can you point out the OR regarding Fareham and Gosport please, as I certianlly can't see any. Gosport only gets mentioned three times, Fareham four, none in a way I would consider to be OR. Arriva436/talk/contribs 20:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • 'Other services into the city were operated by Southdown Motor Services and the Gosport & Fareham Omnibus Company' No, Gosport & Fareham Omnibus, Provincial or Hants & Dorset did not operate services in Portsmouth. Not as private concerns, not after 1926 when the city banned all other operators, not after 1948 after Southdown were readmitted and not as National Bus Company when anything east of Fareham centre was Southdown's, including districts of Fareham. They did however, operate many services into Southampton. 'Prior to bus deregulation and the privatisation of National Bus Company in 1986, Gosport & Fareham was merged with the western part of Hants & Dorset to form People's Provincial' Again, this has nothing to do with Portsmouth. People are still conflating First's current operational structure as implying disparate areas have a shared history.Nuttah (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're right in most respects. For some reason I assumed that Gosport & Fareham served Portsmouth when there was no evidence that they did, and I've now corrected that. The part about the creation of Provincial is relevant since they went on to play a major role in Portsmouth. Where the article says PCT, it refers not to the post-1986 Portsmouth City Transport but the pre-1986 Portsmouth Corporation Transport, which was indeed also known as City of Portsmouth Passenger Transport Department but is referred to by the shorter name in most secondary sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, almost forgot, do you have any sources to support the historical stuff? According to the sources I used Provincial was never owned by Southampton - it was part of First before Southampton was - and operated into Portsmouth as an independent from 1991, right after the start of Transit Holdings' 100% minibus operation. Southdown were back operating in Portsmouth at least as early as 1946, not 1948, because that's when the joint running agreement was signed. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hold on, you're wrong about H&D as well. Route X71 was a joint operation between Hants and Southdown running from Southampton to Portsmouth in the 1970s. Mentioned in industry sources at the time (I can't show you that, obviously) and here (not sure how reliable this is), and was recently part-recreated during a running day that I went to, and that will be repeated next year. I'm starting to wonder just how thoroughly you researched your last comment - that's a minimum of three historical errors, and no sources to support anything else you say. Before accusing others of original research, check that you aren't doing the same, or you risk coming across as an inaccurate hypocrite. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • So it wasn't original research, it was factually wrong. I thought it didn't seem like OR. Arriva436/talk/contribs 15:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. It is not a universal list of bus routes, nor should it be. There are places on the internet where this information may be rapidly obtained, riders do not and should not be coming to Wikipedia for this information. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK then, if you actually check, you will find that "There are places on the Internet where this information may be rapidly obtained" is completely wrong, and that actually this information is very hard to find all in one place, especially for Hampshire-wide information. Unless of course you did actually check before making such a statement, and you can give a link that will show the same information in a similar format...? Besides, why should information about buses not be included on Wikipedia, when 1) there is no policy against it and 2) There is far more information about train, ferry and plane services, meaning without buses there's an odd hole in coverage? Arriva436talk/contribs 19:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you're saying this should be kept since it's valid original research that can't be found elsewhere?!? Lists of bus routes are pretty much a textbook definition of unencyclopedic local cruft. Carrite (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If lists of bus routes were "textbook definitions of unencyclopaedic local cruft" then they would be mentioned, explicitly or implicitly, in at least one of the pages we have giving examples of things that Wikipedia is not for. However, they don't appear in such lists because they are neither unencyclopaedic nor cruft - unless you are going to present any evidence to the contrary? Many of these list of bus route articles are sourced, none of the others has been shown to be unsourceable. Just because there is no single place on the internet that gives easily accessed encyclopaedic coverage of a subject does not mean that we should delete our coverage of the topic - indeed our job is to be that single, easily accessed provider of encyclopaedic coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Existing elsewhere is not a reason for content to be deleted, but a fundamental requirement for it to be kept, as WP:V makes perfectly clear. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is most unlikely that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources will ever be found for this material. The article fails General Notability Guideline, Notability of Standalone Lists guideline, Wikipedia is not a Directory, Wikipedia Stand Alone List Guideline Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide and Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. If this sort of material is kept it is always liable to become outdated and a source of misinformation if editors concerned lose interest. Even if we have legal indemnity against any unfortunate consequences of providing wrong data we have a moral responsibility to avoid doing so, not to mention the potential damage to WP's reputation. It is not just a case of not liking it as there are sound reasons for not keeping it.--Charles (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. The Portsmouth article already contains a Transport section. If and when enough referenced encyclopaedic content from secondary sources exists maybe that can be split out into a separate transport article. If that grows sufficiently maybe we'll one day have a Buses in Portsmouth article. In the meantime this offers no value. The Portsmouth article already details operators in the city, the operator pages already offer greater detail (although I would question the detail there), all this does is list the routes but provides no added value. The edit war on 'colours', despite them being a transitory marketing method than anything of note, sums up the article. Additionally, I see little other than Original research for justification of what is included. Nuttah (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the Basingstoke AfD for my reply about refs.  Adam mugliston  Talk  21:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per my reply on the Basingstoke article, there are no refs and no answer as to the WP:OR issue. Nuttah (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)#[reply]
        • And per my reply there, I have explained that I will be getting on to that. Portsmouth is the next in line.  Adam mugliston  Talk  21:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • No you haven't. You provided a link that shows you are linking to bus company websites, none of which establish how WP:GNG is met or how you have decided what is Portsmouth Area apart from WP:OR. Nuttah (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, as you said it's a decision. Decisions can't be sourced, because it was made, in this case, by me. I chose the towns, which have a couple of bus routes linking them with each other.  Adam mugliston  Talk  21:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • You maybe should read WP:OR, in particular the lines that run 'To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented.' - you can't just add material because 'I chose the towns, which have a couple of bus routes linking them with each other.' It has to be sourced. Nuttah (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, some things just have to be decided, you sometimes have to put a mark somewhere. I made a decision to have the towns, but when I revamp, I will change this article to Portsmouth & Southsea. I chose that, because the two towns are almost merged, there's no countryside border between them and they have several bus routes that join them.  Adam mugliston  Talk  21:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • As I said, read WP:OR - you cannot decide, OR is not a guideline, it is policy - unless you have references linking the subject you fall foul of it (History - Southsea has never existed indenpendently. it has always been part of Portsmouth.) Nuttah (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Oops again. Well, it can be Portsmouth and Waterlooville. It's like asking me to prove that Portsmouth is called Portsmouth. I can put a map, that shows all the bus routes that link the two. OK?  Adam mugliston  Talk  22:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • No it's not, you're still missing the point. To justify ANY article you need sources that cover that. If you want a Portsmouth and Waterlooville you need sources discussing that. You cannot invent a link Nuttah (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just being the list without having excessive timetable details makes this a normal article. It is not indiscriminate or over-detailed unless it starts listing the detailed routes. I am unable to understand the opposition to these articles if someone wants to maintain them. I similarly am unable to see that they are more functional in a combined article, though iI would not rule that out as a possibility if it would satisfy the objections. The important thing is the content, not the division into articles. Wikia is not a substitute. wikia has no requirements for reliable sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is not indiscriminate can someone define what the original editor means by 'Portsmouth Area'? It certainly isn't they city council boundaries or the ONS Portsmouth Urban Area. From the discussion above I think it is pretty clear that the original editor 'invented' his own definition. Nuttah (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is explained at the top of the article.  Adam mugliston  Talk  07:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but where is the justification for grouping these areas other than you thought it would be a good idea? Nuttah (talk) 07:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I told you already, I can give some maps for sources, that the towns have many connecting bus routes, but there's not much else and it has to be something.  Adam mugliston  Talk  08:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominating 8 "list of bus routes in ..." LISTS, with 'rubberstamp' rationals, separately was pointless. If your rational was the same in all of them, why not do a single AFD for the Group of them. All my keep reasons are stated in the currently ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a perfectly notable article which just needs a little expansion, is all. Rcsprinter (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a perfectly encyclopaedic list (please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Southampton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Alton, Bordon and Tadley area and especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) for full reasoning). Regarding the title and scope of this article, List of bus routes in the Portsmouth area or simply List of bus routes in Portsmouth might be better. I'm not familiar with this area of the country, but bus route provision doesn't necessarily follow present-day political boundaries (doubly so for when the articles include historical information too), so it could easily be the area served by a coherent network of services. If it isn't, then the content should probably be reorganised into articles based around such groupings if such is not OR. These are not reasons to delete though.Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - per my comments [26] I disagree with the nomination statement. The article does require sourcing though. WormTT · (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge may be a viable option, discussion should continue on the talk page. Courcelles 03:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bus routes in Winchester, Hampshire[edit]

Bus routes in Winchester, Hampshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a place for travel guides - that is what Wikitravel is for. Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my nomination for those who may not have read the specific guidance in WP:NOTDIR - WP:NOTGUIDE states that travel guide content belongs at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A simple list of bus routes is neither a directory or a Travel Guide. Re WP:NOTDIR. A list of bus routes is not "Genealogical entries", "The White or Yellow Pages", "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business", "Sales catalogs", "Changelogs or release notes", "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations", "A complete exposition of all possible details" nor really a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", so WP:NOTDIR does not have any points within that a list of bus routes would contravene. Re WP:NOTGUIDE, I won't list all the points again, but the only one that could be argued a list of bus routes is against is point 2, "Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide". However, this is referring more to using Wikipedia as a sort of holiday travel guide with tourist destinations, restaurant, hotel or venue as it says in the text. You wouldn't use a list of bus routes to actually plan a trip out on the bus, therefore a list of bus routes is not a Travel Guide. You'd need the complete bus timetable for it to be anywhere near a travel guide. Arriva436talk/contribs 18:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion.  Adam mugliston  Talk  11:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for a keep. Show me one substantial, independently published source for ANY of these Original Research Bus Route Cruft pieces, please. Carrite (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a revised List of bus routes in Hampshire. This would be a county-wide list, to match the formats of the other List of bus routes in England. Arriva436talk/contribs 12:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - is there a particular reason why all of these have been nominated separately?? It would have made it much easier if there was a joint nomination. Arriva436talk/contribs 12:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia." - what? Where on earth does this appear in policy? Using this logic, every article about buses - including four GAs, one of which is about an individual route - would be deleted. If you really feel that minority interests shouldn't be represented, why did you write List of artists who have performed at the Colston Hall, which gets less than one-third of the views that this article gets? This smacks of personal bias, and should be ignored by the closing admin. And it's been copied across ten of these AfDs! There are plenty of good reasons why this article either shouldn't exist or should be rewritten in a different format, but this is not one of them. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. It is not a universal list of bus routes, nor should it be. There are places on the internet where this information may be rapidly obtained, riders do not and should not be coming to Wikipedia for this information. Carrite (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK then, if you actually check, you will find that "There are places on the Internet where this information may be rapidly obtained" is completely wrong, and that actually this information is very hard to find all in one place, especially for Hampshire-wide information. Unless of course you did actually check before making such a statement, and you can give a link that will show the same information in a similar format...? Besides, why should information about buses not be included on Wikipedia, when 1) there is no policy against it and 2) There is far more information about train, ferry and plane services, meaning without buses there's an odd hole in coverage? Arriva436talk/contribs 19:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you're saying this should be kept since it's valid original research that can't be found elsewhere?!? Lists of bus routes are pretty much a textbook definition of unencyclopedic local cruft. Carrite (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If lists of bus routes were "textbook definitions of unencyclopaedic local cruft" then they would be mentioned, explicitly or implicitly, in at least one of the pages we have giving examples of things that Wikipedia is not for. However, they don't appear in such lists because they are neither unencyclopaedic nor cruft - unless you are going to present any evidence to the contrary? Many of these list of bus route articles are sourced, none of the others has been shown to be unsourceable. Just because there is no single place on the internet that gives easily accessed encyclopaedic coverage of a subject does not mean that we should delete our coverage of the topic - indeed our job is to be that single, easily accessed provider of encyclopaedic coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or else Merge per suggestion by Arriva436. No independent reliable sources for this grouping of items (see WP:LISTN). Although the individual items in the list don't each need to be documented as notable, the "grouping or set in general" needs to pass notability requirements — something which I don't see here. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs pruning of excessive information and better sourcing, might benefit from a merge. However, I disagree with the nomination statement per my comments here, and do not see that the article needs deleting. WormTT · (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep with the same rationale as the other  AfDs. Th detailed routes are normally considered excessive coverage, and should be deleted, but otherwise this is a standard sort of article. Merging into larger jurisdictions is always possible, but probably Winchester is a sufficiently large city for this to be a separate article.     DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logicworks[edit]

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

Notability and verifiability issues, written like an advert no doubt by someone with a conflict of interest. Nominating after failed speedy by another editor: "This article is written like an advertisement. The sources referenced are from press releases and promotional material for the company, not independent, verifiable sources. The company itself is not noteworthy, the only noteworthy fact is that the founder is a socialite from NYC and the son of the NYC department of city planning, Amanda Burden. His social status and mother by themselves do not make this a noteworthy company. The voice of the article is written as promotional material and would require a full rewrite to remove bias." WikiScrubber (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Article was created and developed by an editor who didn't do much else. Seems to have a lot of references, but of questionable quality. If notability can be established through a good quality source, then it may just need some clean-up and style improvements. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this is clearly spam. first 20 google hits are to either company's promotional material or to other, unrelated topics, so seems to fail notability. article does nothing to establish it. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Unambiguous advertising: They expanded their managed hosting competency to become a pure-play complex managed hosting firm, targeting clients with high-availability system requirements. During that time, the firm launched its Managed Database Services in order to attract and support SaaS and eCommerce clients requiring secure, compliant, and transaction intensive database performance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why do some of you hate these companies so much? Without them, your beloved WP and most of the rest of Internet content would not exist. The editors that quote portions of the article here are misguided if they think that problems with prose or style are reasons for deletion. Better to look at the quality of the sources like MakeSense did; there's 28 sources to judge. Don't think I'm defending this article because I'm not... I'm just not voting --DeVerm (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012–2013 United States network television schedule (weekday)[edit]

2012–2013 United States network television schedule (weekday) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article about a television season more than one year in the future can only be considered conjecture at best at this point. Despite some references indicating that some shows have been renewed for multiple year contracts, there is no guarantee those shows will continue to be shown in the same time slots, or that the given networks will even exist 14 - 30 months from now. (An unlikely scenario, true, but since the future is unpredictable, we should take some care in writing about it.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Article seems to be created by a very new editor, so he may just need some help. If it was a list with the weather for next year, then I would agree with the "WP is not a crystal ball" objection. But TV stations can and do announce planned shows well in advance, so as long as it uses sources this article has merit, and it can be updated whenever TV stations announce changes to their planned schedules. Are there any similar list articles already? MakeSense64 (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that this will be useful information, and the page is well-done. However an encyclopedia is supposed to be for articles about topics of lasting interest. This is really a primary source, not an article. It is of interest mainly right now until the season it over. After that it will be an historical curiousity, just like a 1971 TV schedule would be today. Perhaps fun to check out and useful to a person studying the history of TV, but not what belongs in an encyclopedia. There must be other websites that store this information for interested researchers. Besides that if we keep this one we should have one for every nation and every year since TV started. Wolfview (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No, way WP:TOOSOON. It is completely likely that ABC's new daytime schedule for 2011-12 could completely flop, for instance, and ABC has made no announcements as to where Katie Couric will go in non O&O markets, and MakeSense, they never put out schedules this early at all. Until May 2012 when it actually is announced this must remain a redlink. Nate • (chatter) 16:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:crystal ball. Perhaps some of the information could be moved into individual articles on specific networks (NBC, Fox, etc) in some sort of "future plans" section in those articles. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not so far ahead as to make the information crystal ball. People do write about television that far in advance. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment People write speculatively about television that far in advance. In the same way that Wikipedia discourages writing about upcoming films until principal photography is underway because of the likelihood that a film project may fail, it is unwise to write about television schedules so far in advance given the fluid nature of television programming. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Even if the cited sources were completely reliable predictors of events over a year in the future, they still would not suffice to substantiate this collection of data. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Also, article was created by a suspected sock puppet of William313 who was blocked for vandalism. Farine (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk to me 16:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarahxxlou (Sarah Louise Stanton)[edit]

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

Non-notable internet "personality". Only sources provided are the subject's own Youtube channel and blogspot blog. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Since her first article was deleted and she's attempting to recreate it here, I wrote her explaining why notability is important in an encyclopedia. — Senator2029 (talk) 12:44 pm, 24 July 2011 (UTC−4) —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Speedy delete - completely unremarkable blogger. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk to me 16:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Whitby[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. Has not "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" as required by criteria #1. According to IMDB the extent of her experience has been voicing herself in several video shorts, 1 role in a non-notable production and she's also had minor roles in two episodes of So Random!. No evidence that she meets criteria 2 or 3 of WP:ENT. AussieLegend (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable straight-to-kids-video regular, and I assume that we can demerit one point because her appearance as herself on BrainSurge is as a run-of-the-mill game show contestant. Until she has more roles on television than on direct-to-DVD, no need for an article. Nate • (chatter) 16:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree. Her body of work is not strong enough to require her a separate article in Wikipedia. I Help, When I Can. [12] 03:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 03:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cable Rant[edit]

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

Don't see why the forum merits its own article.

Only claims to notability are (a) over 500 members (b) some news stories broken. However: (a) 500+ members is not at all unusual, and the forum isn't very active (just over 6,000 posts to date, and none for two days). (b) The broken news stories don't appear to be major stories.

Seems to be only minimal mention of forum elsewhere (though it is a bit difficult to search for). A bit iffy (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —A bit iffy (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —A bit iffy (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Probably fails notability for internet WP:WEB. Just a forum and chat site. Editor who created the article never did anything else on WP. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RS and WP:WEB. The "sources" don't really discuss Cable Rant at all; two of them cite Cable Rant (casually and in passing) as their own source, and one doesn't even appear to mention Cable Rant at all. No signs here of any notability, and I couldn't find anything in a Google search either. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 07:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lungs (song)[edit]

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

Single does not meet the notability criteria under WP:NALBUMS. It is not covered by third-party sources, and has not charted. Last nomination was no consensus because there was no participation except by the article creator. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Article was moved between AfDs. Previous AfD can be found here. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NSONGS. Would suggest a redirect to the albums page (as well as copying the album specific info over), but that doesn't currently exist. Nikthestoned 09:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 07:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Soo[edit]

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

Medical student who created a way to make music from an IPhone and a Wii remote. Also founded a non-profit. References link to his college papers. Unable to find reliable references except to his college papers. Bgwhite (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus & Millichap[edit]

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

Article appears to be promotional, as it has no third-party sources, reads like an advertisement, and was created by a SPA (User: Sternsjohn) whose user page redirects here. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Difluoroethene (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly this corporation is notable on any common sense meaning of the term. As is often the case with large organisations it will require a lot of work to create a satisfactory and informative history and description, but the information will exist - it isn't the shortage but the abundance of material that will make the task difficult. Those aren't grounds for deletion. --AJHingston (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Qrsdogg's improvements. Of the two sources currently in the article, only the book mention is impressive - the one from Retail Traffic reads like a press release - but Google News finds plenty of other material in important sources like the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune. --MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have some concern about these sources
    • The first, from Retail Traffic, reads very much like a press release (which, as a self-published source, is not an indicator of notability). To attempt to confirm this, I googled a chunk and got a large number of identical hits which makes me believe further that this is a press release. Still looking for the original, or a source that clearly identifies it as a release.
    • The second, from The complete guide to buying and selling apartment buildings, is a very brief mention of an index that M&M use, but appears to have nothing significant about the article's subject itself.
    • I did a sampling from the google news link above, and found only
      • Further press-release type material, [27] and
      • Items that are not actually about the article's subject, [28]
In the absence of multiple independent significant coverage from reliable sources, I don't see how this can calim to meet the general notability guide.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Notability requirements at WP:COMPANY demand some sort of independent third-party publications that discuss the firm. I'm not seeing it yet in the sources (two) provided so far. Unless more sources can be provided, it does not meet WP notability requirements. --Noleander (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources added don't convey notability in my opinion. It is a big company but lots of big companies aren't notable. I'm willing to change to keep with better refs. Szzuk (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Simple Google searches reveal thousands of articles in reliable sources. Article currently has two sources, but can easily be expanded. No BLP concerns warrant deletion at this time. --PinkBull 21:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A google search is not sufficient to determine what's a reliable source without actually looking at a source. Is there a particular source that you can bring to the discussion that you feel meets the guidelines? - Aaron Brenneman (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Spartaz Humbug! 07:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Cylinder[edit]

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

This article heavily violates WP:NPOV and contains many unverifiable sources WP:NOTRELIABLE. Some claims raise a WP:REDFLAG, with some sections being highly opinionated WP:ORIGINAL and WP:LIKELY Xythianos (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep as SK1. These are clearly not reasons for deletion and the nomination is almost certainly pov. The editor has not brought up any concerns on the talk page and has not edited the article. I'd be surprised if there are ny unverifiable sources in the article. The nominator apparently doesn't like some of the content on interpretation but this is not an acceptable way to deal with such concerns. There is absolutely no question that the subject is notable. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, per above. If you are worried about the quality of the article, suggest a peer review. AFD is not for cleanup. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and trout the nominator. LiteralKa (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of Banu Nadir[edit]

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

The article appears to be a WP:POVFORK with some serious misrepresentation of the sources and misleading statements as explained on talk page: Talk:Invasion of Banu Nadir#POV fork. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Seems to be a continuence of a heated discussion between the nominator and the page's creator. There may need to be some clean-up, but that is not was AFD is for. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I requested deletion right after listing the issues with the article. I used the wrong tag though in the beginning. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep addressed users concerns in talk. User seems to be unhappy that the article does not say what he wants it to. Furthermore, if this was a POV fork as the user who nominated it claims. Then i would have to merge it, then we would find that the Banu Nadir article has become to big, and would need seperating anyway. As the Banu Nadir where involved in more than 1 military expedition in relation to Muhammad. Sources also make it clear that the Invasion of Banu nadir and the Banu Nadir are not the same thing, and authors like Mubrakpuri mention that there is such a thing called "Invasion of Banu Nadir". You argument is like saying the place called Badr and Battle of Badr should be 1, and if anyone makes an article called Battle of Badr, then it is a POV fork. Or Britain and the Battle of Britain should be 1. I will definately re write this article and remove Mubarakpuri's point of view (as users complained i over used him) and add more of Watt, Stillman, Muir, Kister e.t.c views. But then you will complain even more, as all soruces i used claim Muhammad attacked the tribe because an Angel told him, but those scholars i mentioned dont believe Muhammad is a prophet. You claim the article is factually inaccurate because it doesnt match what you want it to say. The claim that Maslmah verfied that the tribe wanted to kill Muhammad is denied by the previouslly mentioned scholars, and your claim in the talk to watt said, so and so, does not have a reference. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This AfD nomination isn't really based in policy, but appears to to be a rather pointy extension of arguments from the talkpage. A thorough review of the references seems to be all that's needed here, not deletion. Doc Tropics 16:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - per others; this a a bad-faith AFD being used as part of a content disagreement William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs cleanup but meets notability requirements. --BETA 01:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. It's definitely a POV fork, and I can see the argument that it just needs to be worked on, but I can also see the argument that it would be better to blow it up and start over based on the material and sources in the original article, since this one relies heavily on a bad source. I recommend that the creator step away from this one for a while. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will definately re write this article and remove Mubarakpuri's point of view , but then al-A will complain more--Misconceptions2 (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the only undue source. ~ AdvertAdam talk 02:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep and discuss any pov problems on the talk page. It's a famous historical event, and fully justifies a separate article. There are, of course, discussions of it in scholarly sources for the last 13 centuries     DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk to me 06:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa FC[edit]

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

Club is not notable as per WP:Footy TonyStarks (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of existence, let alone notability. GiantSnowman 18:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is claimed this team plays in the Canadian Soccer League, yet there is no mention of them on the official website [29]. Also find it hard to believe a team called Ottawa F.C. would be based in a suburb of Toronto. Deserter1 19:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. the only online mentions i can find appear to quote directly of wikipedia. I believe this team is probably a hoax. Warburton1368 (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Not a hoax but definitely not notable and does not warrant an article.TonyStarks (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 07:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ox Tales[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable. No reliable sources in article and most of the google hits I got on "ox tales" were for the anime of the same name. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 04:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with article about the anime. Most of what little info there is here is already there. Save readers some extra work. Wolfview (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect seems preferable to merge, since the info here is already essentially present on anime page. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ox Tales (anime). Existing article has no sources and virtually no information. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Courcelles 07:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN[edit]

LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails to meet the general notability requirements of WP:BIO or the more specific ones set forth at WP:Composer. The only third party coverage of the subject himself appears to be his Washington Post 2009 obituary. He did compose a march that one or perhaps two District Commissioners declared in 1961 to be the "official" march of the District of Columbia, but the force of that declaration is uncertain and march's notability is questionable. The march appears to be unknown to residents (or at least, unmentioned) and rarely if ever performed. It is not mentioned in the DC Government webpage and the only other references to it that I could find were the above obituary, two brief references in articles (which in fact appeared to play off its obscurity), here and here, and at the Navy Band's own website here. JohnInDC (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based on the identification of additional sources by and the comments of editors more familiar with the subject matter, I withdraw my nomination above. JohnInDC (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Should obviously be renamed Anthony A. Mitchell, but he was leader of one of the principal US military bands and was considered significant enough for an obituary in the Washington Post, which I think satisfies notability criteria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is not sufficiently notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless reliable sources can be found. A single obituary fails the notability test at Wikipedia:NOTE#Events.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't think that covers an obituary. He wasn't known for his death, but for his life. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since obituaries are often paid for and written by (or on behalf of) the family, they can and should be treated as reliable, of course. For the same reason, however, they cannot reasonably establish notability, because they are not third-party sources, let alone "multiple third-party sources". If a number of obituaries are printed in different major newspapers, that would be another matter, though in such circumstances it would be extremely unusual for the subject not ever to have been mentioned in print while he was alive.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • In a reputable, mainstream newspaper? I don't think so. Of course obituaries in proper newspapers are a third-party source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no other reliable sources can be found. In response to Necrothesp, being the director of the navy band does not automatically confer notability and no other leader of the US navy band has an article. Very unlikely to find any other reliable/scholarly sources about this individual or his work. -epicAdam(talk) 19:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "being the director of the navy band does not automatically confer notability": Well, that's a judgement call isn't it. As any WP editor commenting on an AfD should know, nothing is set in stone. "no other leader of the US navy band has an article": So what? Nobody had an article until somebody wrote one! That's how Wikipedia works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete - Changing !vote to Keep based on SarekOfVulcan and KenKeisel. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) requirements. --Noleander (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is always hard to fault Sarek's reasoning. I disagree but can't fault him. I would only note that, contrary to the statements below, none of the sources say that Mitchell was "commissioned" to write any of these marches; or that the Kennedys "selected" him to play at JFK's funeral. As best I can tell, he played at the funeral because the Navy Band played for JFK (a Navy man), and Mitchell was leader of the Navy Band in 1963. If folks think he's notable enough to keep, that's fine, but the decision should be based on the facts. JohnInDC (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This fellow was the band leader for the United States Navy Band for 6 years. He was selected to compose the anthem of the District of Columbia. He was commissioned to compose the official marches of the United States Park Service, and the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which were among the last official marches ever composed. He was selected by the Kennedy family to perform the dirge at John F. Kennedy's funeral. When he died in 2009 he was given a half page eulogy in The Washington Post. If he's good enough to receive that kind of recognition in the Washington Post he more than rates a Wikipedia article. As for references, people are always encouraged to add more, but it seems that the Washington Post did a pretty good job of listing all relevant information. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just added additional references to this article supporting the accuracy of the information contained. Thus far I have not found one piece of writing that contests any of the information contained in the article. A review of the challenger's explanation states that he has not found any friends who remember the Distric of Columbia anthem. His friends lack of depth in their knowledge of D.C. area music is not a valid challenge in light of so much supporting references.- Ken keisel (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There has been no challenge to the content of the obituary, only to the question of the subject's notability. The requirement is that "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is independent of the subject being covered" (Wikipedia:Third-party sources). The addition of record-liner notes (doubtless written either by LCDR Mitchell himself or by a bandsman under his command) may help to bolster statements found in the obituary, but they do nothing to establish notability, because this is not a third-party source. (Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people) for a fuller explanation.) Ideal for establishing notability would be an article in an established reference authority, such as the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (but not the various Who's Who in Musics, which are essentially vanity publications because the entries are written by the subjects), or a book on the history of military music, published by a reputable publisher.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read WP:IAR and WP:BURO and ask yourself whether deleting an article on the musical director of a major band would actually improve Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you! This challenger has already questioned the accuracy of 'The Washington Post' as a reference. Pretty clear that this challenge is based on a personal bias against the source. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, you are mistaken about that. Please read more carefully. Also, assume good faith. Accusations of bias tend not to advance civil discussion. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Other than a personal bias this challange doesn't make any sense. The fact that he was the band leader who conducted the music at John F. Kennedy's funeral is alone enough to warrant an inclusion in Wikipedia. Everyone living in D.C. during the 1940s-1960s saw him perform and conduct thousands of times on the Capital steps, not to mention his founding of the Washington D.C. Area Soloist's Festival - Ken keisel (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure about this one. Google seems to indicate that there may be coverage in the New York Times here and in the Chicago Tribune here, but these are in pay-per-view archives, so I can't tell if they are substantial or trivial in their coverage. --Deskford (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Times article (Feb 21, 1966) is three paragraphs long. It notes that it is the first time for the Band at Carnegie Hall. It describes the program, and then concludes,

The soloist's accordions were plugged into an amplification system that made them so loud that you couldn't hear the band. The distortion was monstrous. There must be an admiral or a captain or someone in the Navy who cares for music, who outranks the band's conductor, Lieut. Comdr. Anthony A. Mitchell, and who will thunder a command, "Commander, turn that blankety-blank amplifier down."

I haven't got access to the Tribune article. JohnInDC (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment - well, more of a question. I've just noticed that probably 80-85% of the subject article was copied directly from the Washington Post obituary at [30]. Ordinarily I'd either request a speedy delete, or empty out the copyvio material; but I don't want to appear as though I'm subverting or circumventing the AfD process that I put in motion. (I also have little interest in writing a completely new and clean version of an article that I don't think should be here in the first place.) I guess I'm throwing the question to other editors - what needs to be done here, if anything; and if something does need to be done can someone who isn't a nominator please undertake it? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wound up following the instructions at WP:copyvio which, given the extent of the problem, didn't seem to leave much room for doing nothing. Most of the page is blanked now, with a template noting the problem. JohnInDC (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • At this point I am doing what needs to be done and bringing JohnInDC to the attention of site Administrators. JohnInDC has demonstrated a personal bias against both the subject of the article (this is his second attempt to get the article deleted), the band he conducted (he has removed virtually all information posted about the band from the article Washington D.C.), and the music he composed (he has challenged the accuracy of a 'Washington Post' article that states the piece is the official march of Washington D.C.). That is more than enough to file a formal complaint against the user. I have checked the user's "Talk" page and note that it has been repeatably been deleted by JohnInDC. Apparently he has a long history of such derisive behaviour which has resulted in comments on his "Talk" page that he doesn't want anyone to see. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please don't accuse other editors of bias. I would ask that you look at the WP:AGF guideline. JohnInDC has blanked parts of the article because they appeared to have been copied from the Washington Post obituary. This was the correct thing to do, as Wikipedia takes copyright matters very seriously. And, since you mention it, JohnInDC's talk page is fully archived — what you are probably seeing is the times he transfers old discussions to the archive pages — but that is not relevant to the discussion here. We should simply be trying to determine whether or not Anthony A. Mitchell can be demonstrated to have received sufficient independent coverage to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. --Deskford (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, seems to just meet WP:MUSICBIO -- composed march for opening of Kennedy Center, released at least one album with the Navy Band and appeared on a later compilation. I'd make it stronger if I could find more references. (http://www.navyband.navy.mil/history_1960-1970.shtml is good, and I don't think it's been included in the article yet.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! I had missed that, and was touched by the "In Memorium" section of the article. This adds greatly to the article. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That link was among the four I noted in my original posting - JohnInDC (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then why are you still trying to find a way to delete the article? It seems pretty clear that this fellow made a very significant contribution to the musical history of Washington D.C. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because, as I said at the top, he does not appear to meet the notability requirements for people set forth at WP:BIO or WP:Composer. I don't know how I can say it more clearly. JohnInDC (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Head of a significant musical organization is notable. The very nomination admits there are RSs. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SarekOfVulcan. Meets WP:MUSICBIO. Renaming of article settles the only real quibble I had left. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG as the head of significant music organization and the availability of reliable sources. There were articles about him when he took over the Navy Band, e.g. the Tri-City Herald [31] and it appears to have been syndicated in various versions by AP [32] Note that the RCA Victor Album [33] is in The Billboard Book of Top 40 Albums which lists the best-selling popular albums between 1955 and 1995 [34]. Off topic, but I must vent a bit here. How is it that anyone who's ever walked onto the pitch for a first-division football team is automatically notable while the conductor of one of the world's most important miltary bands for almost a decade, with a real (not paid-for) obituary in a major paper, has to jump through these kinds of hoops? OK vent over. ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment +1. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2011
    Comment. Apparently it's because more people write about football than military bands, which makes footballers (and other minor celebrities as opposed to people who have risen to the top in proper jobs) more important to the world. I agree, it's utterly ridiculous and it's probably time either 1) our notability policies and guidelines were revised, or 2) (and this is the one I favour) people realised that Wikipedia is about discussion and not rigid rules. Until a couple of years ago that's the way it used to work and it worked much better. It's only fairly recently I've seen "that's what the rules says so that's what we must do, no dissent allowed" arguments frequently used in AfDs. WP:IAR - if it improves the encyclopaedia, ignore all guidelines. People say this would lead to endless articles about real non-entities (i.e. people like most of us who genuinely aren't notable). I say it didn't then and it won't now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. As nominator I'm starting to feel a little heat here, and would only observe that if this nomination is really as far out of bounds as the foregoing are beginning to imply then 1) the policies and guidelines do need to be revised, or 2) made far more general and flexible in their application. Detailed guidelines will invariably tempt editors to interpret and apply them; if that's ridiculous then do away with the details. Also - maybe I just don't spend enough time hanging around reading AfDs - but what are they anyhow, other than a platform for discussion? I certainly approach them with the attitude that I may learn something. JohnInDC (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The criticism is directed more at the way the guidelines are increasingly interpreted (i.e. as concrete instructions rather than flexible guidelines) than at any individual. I was simply musing as to the recent increase in AfD opinions that tend to quote notability guidelines as a be all and end all without reference to WP:IAR, WP:BURO and WP:UCS. They're intended to be a rough guide, not a weapon to beat "errant" articles (and editors) round the head. Opinions that boil down to "he's not notable because the guidelines don't allow for him to be" are misguided and against the spirit of Wikipedia. That's not directed at any one individual but at a prevailing attitude. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks. I agree with the general musing. Carry on! JohnInDC (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And then there are the footballers who get tons and tons of news coverage, but because they don't meet the WP:NFOOTY guidelines, they get swarmed into oblivion... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Initially I had my doubts, based on the state of the article at the time of the nomination and my own failure to find much independent coverage, but subsequent improvements to the article and sources found by others have convinced me. --Deskford (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How does one withdraw a nomination? Deskford's comments pretty well capture my thinking at this point. JohnInDC (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think all you have to do is leave a note for the closing administrator to that effect under your original nomination at the top of this page. I don't think that will stop the AfD itself, though (three other people here !voted "delete"). Voceditenore (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My "delete" vote was conditioned on no further reliable sources being found. It looks like they have been, so I am convinced it is a keep.—Jerome Kohl (talk)
  • Comment If so, you need to strike through (using <s></s>) your "delete" at the top of the page to make that clear. Voceditenore (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness, the protocol on these pages is complicated! Thanks for explaining this to a novice of only five years experience!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn per WP:HEY. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Nippon Butoku Kai[edit]

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

No third party sources found. Found only tangential mentions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This topic has substantial notability, both for the global history of martial arts and the modern history of Japan. (DNBK had pervasive influence. DNBK is the organisation that made the "black belt" system standard across martial arts. DNBK played a major role in the total militarisation of Japanese society, for example by incorporating martial training in Japan's school curriculum. It's membership was so all-encompassing that the allied powers were unable to completely declare it illegal for lack of unaffiliated personel to help them administer the country. It is of significance in the broader study of WW2. It was also the ancestor to today's IMAF.) Like much associated with Japan's past ultra-nationalism the DNBK has tended to slip away from common discussion in Japan, but there's still independent sources out there such as Prof. Peter Goldsbury's articles describing the DNBK and its consequence to the development of Aikido. I can say the article is certainly likely to be improved in the future. Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every user participating in such a discussion, especially the nominator, the closing admin and the one(s) providing sources, should feel responsible to fix the article once the discussion has closed with a keep-result. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what would I fix it with? I already told you I did a source sweep and found nothing non-trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 12:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As evidenced by your prior nominatons, you really need to improve how you look for sources. You would have actually found some in this case, if you had done a books search, for instance. Even if you couldn't improve the article itself (e.g. you didn't have enough time to read the material), there is a clear WP:POTENTIAL for the article, so there was no need to nominate this article. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found 563 books on Google about this organization, plus a very long and established history when browsing and reading a bit through it all. Looks very notable to me but the article can use some work of course. --DeVerm (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I have begun some improvements to the article by adding one book source on martial arts that devotes an entire chapter to the subject. I ask the nominator to withdraw their nomination, as WP:GNG seems to have been meet, unless there are other objections. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I found the book chapter and a Black Belt article by McCarthy very easily using Google, but have not had time to read through them. I was also intending to investigate McCarthy's relationship with the DNBK, as his website states that he holds qualifications from that organisation. It is not clear to me yet whether the relationship might warrant considering McCarthy a primary source (or similar), or if the relationship is at a similar level to someone writing about a university who also incidentally happens to hold a degree from that university. In any case, these sources clearly constitute more than just passing mentions about the subject. Thanks for your addition to the article. Janggeom (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - My research shows quite a bit of material on this, including over 100 hits in Google books. That, plus the longevity of the organization, warrant that it be included in the encyclopedia. --Noleander (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oi xenitemenoi[edit]

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

Unreferenced article makes no claim of notability for its subject, a Greek-language film. It consists of a plot summary and a cast list. A Google search turned up no useful references to the film, so it fails WP:GNG. Checking against WP:NF, I can't find any evidence of multiple full-length reviews, historic notability, awards, archive preservation, or academic notability. Heck, IMDB doesn't even list any reviews. Rotten Tomatoes has never heard of it. We don't have articles on the director or the two headline stars. It's hard to see how this film could get less notable. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 10:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 10:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janosch Moldau[edit]

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

Self published musician. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Only claims of notability are opening for notable acts, appearances in unnamed festivals and charting in a streaming radio/webzine chart (not the national chart required by WP:MUSIC. Other references are to self published blogs. RadioFan (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello. My name is Claus and I'm a fan of Janosch Moldau. I wrote this wikipedia article about him. It's not true, that Janosch only appears in unnamed festivals. He was listed in the GEWC charts which is important for 'small' bands and he was support of well-known and popular bands such as Mesh from Bristol (UK) or De/Vision from Berlin (Germany) (by the way, I run the official Fanclub for Mesh). It looks, that with his forthcoming 3rd album he can become more known. He did two shows in Austria this spring and it was a big success there. For small artists it is very hard to become known, because magazines only write about them if they have a wikipedia entry. And wikipedia wants to delete the article because the artist is not a 'superstar'. You can see the problem? I would be very happy if you could decide to not delete this article. Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monghi242 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia isn't for making small artists known. They've got to be known before they'll meet guidelines for notability. The reliables sources must come before the Wikipedia article, not the other way around. 'Supporting' well known acts doesn't help either as notability isn't inherited. This artist may one day meet notability guidelines, but that day doesn't appear to be today.--RadioFan (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Science and Technology Center in Ukraine[edit]

Science and Technology Center in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sehmeet singh (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep This is an intergovernmental agency which has international recognition and also has been active at the United Nations and will be taking part in the upcoming Conference on Disarmament as an observer (current affairs). This article should be re-written and elaborated upon. Both Canada and the United States have allocated funds for their programs. This should not have even come close to being submitted for deletion. In fact a treaty was signed in the creation of this organization in July 1997 between Canada, EU, the Ukraine and the US. DeusImperator (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-written a little of the article which should prevent its deletion. A simple search done on the internet would have easily established the worthiness of maintaining this article (but via a re-write). I have left out the cites but anyone can just help me out with them. It should not be hard as there is a multilateral treaty signed for this organization. <slap hand for the submission of this article for a delete>. DeusImperator (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete, move to user space until sources found - Changing !vote to Keep: some sources have been located and added to the article, and they meet the notability requirement. This is a rather new article, and the authors (two editors) did an okay job, but they've neglected to provide sources, which are required per the WP:Verifiability policy. I've posted some information about sourcing and citations on the Talk page of one of the authors (user DeusImperator, who !voted Keep above) and I'm sure he'll look into finding sources. Until sources are located and used, the article should be moved into DeusImperator's user space. It can be brought back here when ready. --Noleander (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A simple query on the internet will provide all the necessary details regarding the organization. Also, the treaties involved with the creation of the organization. My re-write was mainly just to save the article and show its importance as the organization is a) notable, b) important organization with standing and status within the UN c) a construct of international treaties. However, if editors want to delete the article go ahead, do so but keep in mind that there are several FAR less articles about hogwash on the Wiki not deleted due to the lack of cites for which are far less notable not to mention have no internationally recognized standing that is not cited. The Wiki is supposed to be a collaboration, well collaborate. I merely argue that due to the nature of the organization, and readily available information it should stay regardless whether or not it was cited (which I have chosen not to do - for this reason and that was to generate this very same discussion).
A) Those wanting to delete an article should check with tools generally available to all persons (not some esoteric manual of experts)if it is notable or verifiable. They should show that it it is first, not notable and not verifiable by this means.
B) If it is notable and verifiable independently, then the article should be saved, and any deletion tag should be removed. Whether or not it is cited does not matter and should not as long as there is evidence at present that there is material that can be cited. A tag stating that the article should be cited should be placed instead of the request for deletion.
C) Those attempting to delete or argue that an article should be deleted should make the argument in good faith and should have checked the validity of the article before requesting a delete or supporting a deletion.
Further to this, I am NOT the primary author of this article but Ю́рій Перога́нич (Yuri Perohanych). DeusImperator (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments Those requesting a delete should provide an explanation of why the article should be deleted and their reasoning behind the request speedy or otherwise. It is much easier to patrol pages than to contribute in a substantial manner to the Wiki - that is to say writing and editing articles as that is the "substance" of the Wikipedia. Most persons don't read the wiki for the talk pages or the discussions which while important to the organizational character of Wiki is transparent to most readers. In this all editors' contribution are given equal weight although even though contribution to articles which is in essence the substance takes more time, work, thought and knowledge/expertise. It is for this reason that those patrolling and requesting deletes should do some work and act in good faith in assessing the article, before tagging them. Many new page patrollers are not experts in the subject matter discussed (and they don't have to be, but have a good head on their shoulders and be able to reason). I do not expect them to be members of Mensa International or such organizations but should be cautious in their application of the delete or speedy delete tag. I decided not to cite this article and rescued it because it is a perfect example of what I have mentioned in the foregoing. The article was originated by a lawyer versed in International Law (an expert in the field also one of my fields of academic study) and we had what appears to be a minor (as in under 18/21) who has received several cautions (and at the time had only 112 edits) tagging it for deletion. DeusImperator (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deus: This article may have merit. But the burden is on editors who want to keep it (you) to find books and magazine articles that talk about this topic. Once you find those, you can use those to support the article, and include the sources in the article itself. See WP:Citation. If no one does that, the article may be deleted. If you cannot find such sources, that is probably an indication that the organization is not important enough. --Noleander (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are able to comprehend what I am attempting to get through to you - maybe others can. IT IS NOT ABOUT THIS ARTICLE PER SE. Anyone and their dog can find sources for this article and do not need magazines or book to look up cites for this. Any fool can see the merits of the article -not may it does. That is why I choose this article to make my point! A simple search of the Google can provide necessary information regarding validity of subject it hsould not be deleted from Wiki article space. And my reason for not citing it - I could care less if this article is deleted - you do not have to put it in my userspace as I will have it deleted. An article such as this should not be deleted by simply tagged as someone can simply cite this article. I can go and tag every single article that is not cited for deletion if that is the case. My point is articles such as this should not be deleted, but rather should simply be tagged as not being cited and left but not tagged as a speedy delete or request for delete. Because if this is the case I can/will go ahead and tag the thousands of articles that are not cited for delete. So that fact alone should tell you something about it - that there is a difference between the categories. To the Wiki community ... as a whole articles which can be quickly verified (Google search) to have cite-able sources should not be tagged for delete - anything more than a Google search is not needed. That is the reason for simply tagging (needing cite) a continuing to another task. DeusImperator (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I changed my !vote to Keep, based on the sources provided. --Noleander (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anyone who is concerned with the lack of references in the article only has to click on the words "news", "books" and "scholar" in the search links spoon-fed by the nomination process and they will find hundreds of reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you. Hence the reason for this article being a good candidate for such a discussion I am trying to generate and bring to the attention of everyone. DeusImperator (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added two sources, plenty more.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation - There are sources, yes, but they are entire books, and not inlined, so I cannot tell if any of the material in the article comes from the books. Therefore, I have no idea if the level of coverage meets the requirements of WP:GNG, i.e, non-trivial, independent, reliable, etc. As a matter of fact, I have no idea if those books are even about the Center at all from just looking at them. If the sources aren't up to snuff, the article might as well be unsourced. I would say to let it go, and create the article properly and with properly referenced sources the next time. MSJapan (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OOPs sorry did not provide a reference in Braille... Here is the text from the link which on the first page of the link that existed at the very beginning of the discussion.

GENERAL DATA Official Title Agreement to establish a science and technology centre in Ukraine (STCU), as amended by the Protocol of 7 July 1997,
Type of Agreement Multilateral
Usual Title STCU - Science and Technology Centre in Ukraine
Place of Signature Kiev
Date of Signature 25/10/1993
Date of Entry Into Force 04/05/1994
Duration Indefinite
Objective of Agreement Through the creation of an international Science and Technology Centre in Ukraine (STCU), to prevent the proliferation of technologies and expertise related to weapons of mass destruction, to support activities for peaceful purposes and gradual disarmament, and thereby to assist the former Soviet States in their transition to a market economy; also to give weapons scientists opportunities to redirect their talents to peaceful activities. International organisation established by the treaty Science and Technology Center in Ukraine Remarks The EC and Euratom acceded as one party to the Agreement to establish a science and technology centre in Ukraine, concluded on 25 October 1993 by Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and the United States, as amended by the 1997 Protocol.

When Sweden acceded the EU in 1995 it withdrew from this Agreement.

The Science and Technology Centre in Ukraine (STCU) is an intergovernmental organisation established by its donor countries and dedicated to the non–proliferation of technologies and expertise related to weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems by facilitating R&D projects and encouraging technology transfer and commercialisation.

The objectives of the Centre include giving weapons scientists and engineers, particularly those who possess knowledge and skills related to weapons of mass destruction or missile delivery systems, in Ukraine and other States of the CIS, opportunities to redirect their talents to peaceful activities and to contribute thereby to the solution of national or international technical problems, and to the wider goals of reinforcing the transition to market-based economies responsive to civil needs. Relation and Association with Other Agreements -Protocol to amend the agreement to establish a science and technology centre in Ukraine (STCU)
OJ Number L225
OJ Date 12/08/1998
OJ Page 5
Nature of Agreement scientific and technological co-operation agreement
Depositary Ukraine
Contracting Parties European Atomic Energy Community, European Community, Azerbaijan, Canada, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, United States of America, Uzbekistan
Official Languages English, French, Ukrainian
Subject Matters Research and Innovation
military research
scientific research
Management Conseil d'administration
Secrétariat Other Links http://www.stcu.int/
EC PARTICIPATION
Date of Signature 26/11/1998
Conclusion Date 26/11/1998
Ratification Status S
Conclusion Decision Council Regulation (EC) No 1766/98 of 30 July 1998 concerning the accession by the European Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, acting as one party, to the Agreement to establish a science and technology centre in Ukraine, of 25 October 1993, between Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and the United States of America OJ L 225 , 12/08/1998 P. 2 and Commission Regulation (Euratom) No 2387/98 of 3 November 1998 concerning the accession by the European Atomic Energy Community, and the European Community, acting as one party, to an Agreement having established in 1993 a Science and Technology Centre in Ukraine between Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and the United States of America; OJ L 297 of 06/11/1998, p.4
Date of Entry Into Force 06/11/1998
Competence Exclusive
Legal Basis Treaty EAEC, Article 101
Treaty EC, Article 235
DeusImperator (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the standard is verifiable, as in "able to be verified", not "has sources now." AFD is not cleanup, WP:BEFORE would have resulted in finding sources existing. That they don't exist in the article now is not a reason for deletion. --Jayron32 04:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the end this is about something more than this article itself. It is about the process. This article can be cited (easily) but I have chosen not to because this article written by someone other than me, an expert in the field no less, was put up for deletion by an inexperienced editor experimenting on the Wiki goes to show an issue that I have - no it has not happened to be. The only reason I was able to catch this article was because of the problem editor had received cautions and I took the time to go through his edits and fix some problem issues - this was one of them. As I have stated earlier this is not about "my" article but rather that it should be saved even though it is not cited. I am contending the following:
A - Editors (as opposed to patrollers) put more time, work, thought and knowledge/expertise. So it would not be too much to ask that patrollers should do a Google search before putting an article up for deletion thus acting in good faith especially in regard to those in which they lack the expertise.
B - If the article appears to be Notable at a quick glance do request a speedy delete. No one would have bothered with this article if no one bothered to audit the work of the problem editor and fix the issues (there were a few).
C - If the article is not cited then tag as that do not tag for delete. (There was no rational provided for this delete by the patroller who requested the delete).
D - Patrollers with less than 500 edits should not be able to recommend article for deletion.
E - There has to be a process that flags problem editors so that thier work gets an audit and issues fixed.
However I don't see anyone talking about these issues - and these are systematic and this process this article is taking is just goes to illustrate this point. But even with this article I just don't understand whether it some people bother to actually evaluate the subject before providing an opinions. Actually I wish that not references or external references were added to make the point I am trying to make because it would force people to think and process information instead of trying to go through this a a "rote" process. Obviously all this writing can be easily fix by me by adding a cite to this but that would defeat the purpose of this discussion. I am hoping that someone doesn't remove the delete request but allows this discussion to continue as the issue is not the article but the process. DeusImperator (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop whining and fix the problems with the article ... you'll never get policy changed here - the AFD process exists to give you a chance to fix the problems, or else it gets deleted (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Deus: The topic is notable, sure. But you spent quite a bit of time writing lengthy comments here in the AfD page. It would have been better if you had, instead, invested that time adding citations to the article. One of the purposes of the AfD process is to educate editors about WP policies. In this situation, the lesson you hopefully have learned is: when you edit an article that has no citations (and you did edit this article extensively) you should take the time to find some citations and add them. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coming here from AN/I, my opinion is that there is sufficient information for WP:V, and that the technicalities of sourcing the obvious are not reason for deletion when notability is clear. But is is certainly true that the best way to avoid difficulties is to add whatever is possible for sources. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Task Force Arrowhead[edit]

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

Cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. The unit is also not acknowledged by the command and nothing substantial has been written on it besides the initial announcement and some 'fancruft' on forums and the like. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not verifiable, and notability should not be predicted per WP:CRYSTAL. The reference on the website is a deadlink, but I recovered it here. It makes no mention of the above task force. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It made news a while back (see my message on the talk page in 2010), but it appears to have gone completely under the radar now. Your link is one of the very few mentions of it. I agree with you, it's simply not verifiable. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IJethroBot. This task force may become operational within a year, and at that time there are bound to be more sources on it, and an article can be created at that time. --Noleander (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per I, Jethrobot. I also tried to find sources but all I got was people wondering what this taskforce was. --DeVerm (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Deuce[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other relevant SNG. No award noms, no mainstream appearances reported; no GNews hits, no nontrivial GBooks hits (passing mentions). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep digital coverage is pretty limited, but i suspect most of it was done in the print days. Especially when it says: Performer Credits: 189 Titles; Director Credits: 21 Titles. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. By well-established consensus, the number of credits a subject may report is not sufficient to demonstrate notability; "prolific" was once a WP:PORNBIO standard, but was removed without great controversy. The subject was active in the industry from 1995-2003, well beyond the purely print era., and a great many contemporaries have demonstrated notability with adequate coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. There used to be a 100-film standard, Stuart, but "well-established" "non-controversial" consensus threw that out. ("Well-established consensus" means, HW and a couple other editors. "Non-controversial" means, "I hope you don't ask me to link the discussion".) If you take the trouble to look at the archives of the "Porn project" back when people actually worked on articles in this subject-area, most editors were actually trying to lower it. Fortunately, those editors have all been driven out of the project by HW, a couple other like him, and a couple Neville Chamberlain-types. Dekkappai (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The AfD creator is the only major contributor in the field of pr0n, and his opinions should be accepted as consensus without debate. Also, articles on this sort of person only encourage this sort of behavior. As the Shrine of the Sum of Human Knowledge, Wikipedia should be in the business of uplifting humanity, not dragging it down in the gutter. Dekkappai (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. By that argument, should we delete Adolf Hitler too? Stuartyeates (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Stuart, if some guy is thinking about committing genocide, mass-murder, or even just a little massacre in order to get himself an article at Wikipedia, and he then becomes aware of our Deletion policies-- BLP1E in particular would remove such an article-- and because of that knowledge of our strict inclusion standards then decides not to commit this atrocity, I would say we as Wikipedians could hold our heads up proudly. Dekkappai (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The notability criteria for adult film persons is at Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors_and_models. Sid Deuce does not appear to meet any of the criteria listed there. If an editor wants to keep this article, they should review that Notability guideline and provide sources here that demonstrate that Sid Deuce meets one of the criteria. --Noleander (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PORNBIO and WP:RS. Not a value judgment, just acknowledging apparent lack of notability unless significantly better sources can be found. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete here, and the argument that the information is better presented in another form isn't really a reason for deletion. If editors are interested, they can always discuss merging the information elsewhere. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 10:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in philosophy[edit]

List of years in philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Including the following 18 constituent pages:

1649 in philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1658 in philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1922 in philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1926 in philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1962 in philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1969 in philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1970 in philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1971 in philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1972 in philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1973 in philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1974 in philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1975 in philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1976 in philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1977 in philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1978 in philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1979 in philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1980 in philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1981 in philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This "years in philosophy" project appears to be abandoned and incomplete. Many of the pages listed here have not been edited significantly since they were created in 2007, and most contain only a few events (often just publications). In general, it seems to me that the history of philosophy is much better treated now by prose articles such as History of philosophy (and its subarticles), and lists of births/deaths are already handled in lists like List of philosophers born in the 20th century.

Zetawoof (ζ) 22:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophy is a liberal art, not a science. Of the events listed in this series, only a small proportion could be classed as either science or the philosophy of science. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteChanged to Comment philosophy is nowhere near as well defined as the other subjects which use this format. If this was a clearly defined subject (and i mean very clearly, like TV is not Sports, or Science is not NASCAR) that was not well done, i would say keep. anything notable in these lists could just as easily be found at xxxx (the year), xxxx in literature, or occasionally at xxxx in science.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you are suggesting we should move the fact that Peter Unger published Ignorance: A Case for Skepticism from 1975 in philosophy into 1975 in science? No, that's not really appropriate. Or into 1975 in literature? That's just as inappropriate. Or perhaps just into 1975? I don't see any other books–fiction, non-fiction, popular or academic–listed in 1975. Philosophy is a pretty clearly defined subject: it's what philosophers do in philosophy journals and publish in philosophy books and talk about at philosophy conferences held in philosophy departments at universities. Currently the lists primarily tell us about philosophy books being published, and the births and deaths of philosophers. There isn't any problem of working out inclusion here: it's perfectly clearly defined. You put a philosopher who is born or died in that year on the list if there are reliable sources to establish the notability of that person. As for books? That's just as easy: most of the books listed are written by notable philosophers or you could, in a pinch, go and find a source by looking in JSTOR or on PhilPapers showing that a bunch of philosophers have considered it important enough to write paper length responses to. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, some of the works could easily be in either science or literature. literature includes nonfiction works, philosophical works. perusing the articles here, i do see the trend towards an inclusive (i think too inclusive) list of all works published by academic philosophers. some books like Entropy by rifkin are definitely philosophical works, but are outside the academic mainstream. thats why i think these lists wont work, as the boundary between academic philosophy, scientific philosophy, philosophical literature, fiction with philosophical content (daniel quinn, "Jonathan livingston seagull" (i know, yuck)) popular philosophy, religion, spirituality, are too undefined. If people want to work out how to define these articles boundaries, and think they can, i wont stand in the way, thus my change of "vote". good luck with the improvements, if they stay.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Examining the list, I think about 9/10 of the items are clearly philosophy. Individual items are subject to discussion, but we do not delete articles because a sentence or two in it is wrong or debatable, or we'd have remarkably few articles. Philosophy in the modern period is what academic philosophers do, and in earlier periods the works they consider to be philosophy--there is only an operation definitional for this and most other subjects. sports and Science have similar problems of definition . (Is chess a sport? is bridge?; is political science a science? NASCAR is well defined, because it is operational--it's the participants in a defined set of competitions.) Very few of the works would be considered literature by people who study literature. The way to deal with incomplete articles and lists is to work on them. It took quite a while to develop Wikipedia to this point, and it will take quite a while to develop all aspects of it optimally. What I am basically saying, is there is no policy-based reason for deleting incomplete articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is plenty of material to fill out the lists especially in the twentieth century, it just takes time to compile them. There is more than enough material to fill them out and a more complete version of the lists (which is possible, it just takes time and effort to produce) would be a useful and interesting resource for readers just as the other "Year in field" lists are for other topics. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The problem is that there is no clear reason to put any particular book or person or paper in any of these lists, except for some of the earlier ones. If there were an accepted set of awards each year for the best philosophical works then we could write articles of this type. But there isn't. And philosophy is such an introverted subject that there is almost no outside view of it. So the only criterion is to put in things you like and take out ones you don't. Basically there are no reliable secondary or tertiary sources. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure there are. You only need to establish the notability of the philosophers in question: we have enough sources to note that, say, Saul Kripke is notable, and we have plenty of sources saying Naming and Necessity is pretty damn important. Why not include that on 1980 in philosophy in just the same way we would include the publication of Origin of Species in 1859 in science or whatever. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be entirely an inherited notability argument along the same lines as " This popstar is notable, therefore this compilation album with one of his tracks is worth an article". Are there any references covering the subjects of these articles? Dingo1729 (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not an inherited notability argument: it's simply an argument that there is plenty of material and quite reasonable methods to determine inclusion: if the philosophers are notable enough to be in Wikipedia (and, well, most of those currently listed in the X in philosophy articles are) then they are notable enough to be listed as having been born or died. As for their books, if push came to shove, it is easy enough to find reliable sources for a huge majority of the stuff listed. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agree with DGG: WP has several "List of years in ..." articles, listed in Template:Lists_of_years. The Philosophy article cluster may indeed be dormant, but imperfection is no reason to delete an article. Indeed, the AfD process specifies that imperfect articles should be improved, not deleted. --Noleander (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Having perused the 1972 page, I can tell you immediately that these are a really bad idea, in terms of having a function useful to anyone. No opinion on notability, although I will say that close attention to precedent should be paid. Carrite (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little concerned with that p. too;--the only work that seems clearly important enough to be listed is the popper, and it's for a revised ed, not the first ed of the book. All the other years are I think better. What this project needs is attention. I'm willing to give it some, if one other person will commit to work with me on it. don't want to do it by myself, especially as I'm just an amateur in the subject. Any takers?
I posted a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy#Help_needed_at_AfD on the issue of revitalizing this topic. --Noleander (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All I don't see the problem with these lists. The format is common on WP and would be useful to someone studying the history of philosophy. Wolfview (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though with a heavy heart. The articles are not a good way to structure the information. Better would be a timeline of philosophy or the like. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was just a well intentioned bad idea. There is not any one single year which deserves it's own article, and the information is better presented as prose. Djohns21 (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The concepts and people are what matter. Not the exact year, that is irrelevant. Szzuk (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Does that apply to the list of years in science articles too? And what about history of philosophy? —Tom Morris (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophy isn't a science and I used the word 'exact' to negate your second question. Szzuk (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are basically publication lists, and Wikipedia is not (only) a bibliography. Also, philosophy is not the sort of event-driven, linear subject that is best approached on a per-year basis.  Sandstein  05:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are obvious limitations to sorting history by arbitrary chronological metrics, whether years or centuries, but these lists provide a solid and easily accessible foundation for further research. Since there is already a comprehensive index of these lists by topic, deleting a small sampling of "years in philosophy" falls into the old cliche of cutting off one's nose to spite the face. Sure, many of the lists are in bad shape and yes, an interactive graphical timeline would be ideal, but neither criticism warrants salting the earth. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and create 1776 in in philosophy - per Anetode - as yes, the years do matter. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. ^ www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/greece/greece945.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_July_24&oldid=1142638007"