Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 3 March	5 March >

Guide to deletion

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 Anagnorisis.

This AfD was never properly opened, and it was never properly closed. Technically, it has still been open for the whole seven years since it was created.

During this time, an actual AfD ran its course at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wetzel (historian) (2nd nomination), which was confusingly originally named this, and the page you're reading right now was called "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wetzel (historian))" with two closing parentheses. So I shuffled the pages around and edited all the backlinks to fix it, and make the second nom the second nom, and make this the first nom. I used at least three different pieces of software in the course of doing this. I have become effective at doing useless things.

I guess Professor Wetzel is in the same boat as me: he wrote this very long defense of his article, and took the effort of posting it while it was being discussed for deletion, but formatted it incorrectly -- such that it was posted on a new page, instead of on the existing AfD page -- and, as far as I can tell, it was not seen by a single other human being in the seven years afterward. The article was kept, and Wetzel's comments here were never mentioend or even alluded to during that discussion. Perhaps it is a strange irony for me to be the first to read them, since I am myself a historian of Wikipedia deletion processes. Perhaps it is not, and I am just a fool.

Closing this discussion may be the most pointless task I've ever performed in my entire life. Logpages for old AfDs are almost never viewed, except by software, and even then rarely. I spent weeks writing a Python application to automatically process old AfDs, and even the summaries of AfDs from 2015 are hardly ever viewed. So the odds of anybody reading this, as far as I can tell, are about zero. Mostly, I am just working through a list of old orphaned AfDs, and dealing with them all gives me some sense of satisfaction in an otherwise frustrating world. Here, I am alone. This is my zone. And even if it is infinitesimally unimportant, it is something, and I have succeeded in doing it.

Why did I do this? Who cares? I don't even think I care. But I did it anyway. Maybe I am a crank. But maybe in a hundred years someone (or something) will see this close note in the course of making a comprehensive and exhaustive review of all Wikipedia deletion discussions, and thank me for being so diligent. Who knows? Maybe it was worth ten minutes of doing this. I'll never get to know.

This is the first, and likely last, AfD closed as "anagnorisis" in the history of Wikipedia.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 03:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Wetzel (historian)

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

This template contains four objections to which I wish to respond.

OBJECTION 1: "The article is written like an advertisement."

RESPONSE: Really??? The only thing I say that is self-promotional is my designation, in April 2012, by The Princeton Review as one of the best 300 professors in the United States. According to The Daily Cal, six other Berkeley lectures fell into this category. But I consider this an honor. A perceptive editor wrote me that if I have other 3rd party sources, especially reviews of your books....add them! As will be seen from what follows, I have taken this advice.

OBJECTION 2: "The article is an orphan."

RESPONSE: A dead dog. This may have been true when an editor wrote me on 2/26, but it is true no longer. My entry now links to other Wikipedia pages on a) UC Berkeley; b) The Crimean War; c) the Franco-Prussian War; d) the German magazine DAMALS.

OBJECTION 3: The Notability Issue.

RESPONSE: The editor wrote me (in late February) that a search disclosed no more than one publication in which my name appeared--to wit, The Daily Cal. But what about The Princeton Review? DAMALS? The American Historical Review? The Journal of Modern History? Times Higher Education? the "TLS? To be fair, the names of these last three did not appear when I first read the edit. But they appear now.

A few facts: According to The Princeton Review, there were, as of April 2012, 1,700,00 professors or other academics in the United States.. According to Wikipedia, DAMALS had (as of 2009) a quarterly circulation of over 30,000. I do not know the figures for the Times Higher Education, but since it's a product of The Times of London, the figure can't be a lowl one. And what about the TlS itself? Ditto the AHA and the JMH- they are almost universally regarded as the most esteemed historical periodicals in the United Sates. What their respective reviewers had to say about my book, A Duel of Nations, I leave the reader of my entry to judge. Ditto the comment by Dennis Showalter.

OBJECTION 4: The COI. You can't write about yourself. RESPONSE: And I haven't. The identity of the author of the deleted entry David Wetzel; The Dream Historian remains a mystery to me. But clearly someone tried to help. I understand Wikipedia editors have access to deleted articles. They can verify this for themselves.

The above reasons are compelling ones. Please save my entry. 02:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC) 02:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)~ ```1

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities at University of Dhaka

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

as per WP:GNG and WP:NOTGUIDE. this article has no encyclopaedic value, it is purely a guide for students. I oppose redirect and merge as any pertinent info is in the main University of Dhaka already. Also it's an unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IMHO the nom's spot on - If you're a student here - This comes in handy, If on the other hand you live anywhere but Dhaka then chances are this article is going to be absolutely useless to you but meh that's my take on it, Anyway imho not seeing any encyclopedic content here so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 04:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment Poorly written and needs a lot of ref-impore BUT valid spin-off. – nafSadh did say 16:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are twenty or so {{University of Dhaka}} related articles which I've recently been tidying a little, prompted by User:LibStar proding a couple of them. The prods are easily salvageable but on this one I agree; little of the content is appropriate to Wikipedia and most of what is can already be found in one or another of the twenty.

@Nafsadh: suggest that over the next couple of days you merge into the other articles any content that you consider particularly valuable; it really isn't encyclopaedic for the most part. -Arb. (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Univ of Dhaka is really not in my priority list and every article related to it is absolute mess. I wish there was someone was interested and active on Wikipedia from the university and would improve that. I concur that this spinoff is not encyclopedic on its own merit. Sadly the parent article is neither. – nafSadh did say 15:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why does there have to be more than one Dhaka University article? One page is enough to cover these topics, in fact the DU page already has a list of faculties. The main university article needs work. I don't see other major Asian universities with so many subpages.--203.112.78.254 (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The key points could be adequately covered in the main article on the University of Dhaka. Detailed lists of buildings and their capacities for a single university isn't encyclopaedic content -- Helenabella (Talk) 07:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and fails WP:GNG.It is covered in the University of Dhaka.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional Programming

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

Sorry if I'm not wording things well, I don't contribute to wikipedia much aside from occasional spelling and grammar improvements. I guess I'm trying to say (as a software developer) that I don't think this is notable. This article seems to exist only to hype a company with a poorly defined paradigm. I was sent a generic recruitment email from Intentional Software that mostly linked to this page, which seems constructed to make that company sound like it's doing more than it is. I'm not convinced that this is an actual separate paradigm, it talks a lot about what it could do in very abstract terms, but does not go into much depth on problems being approached differently. Darklink259 (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see what you mean, about both the article and the idea, and it suggests potential WP:COI issues if the company is actively using this article in their recruitment materials. But I think this is notable in the Wikipedia sense - coverage in multiple reliable sources - even though it hasn't really taken off as a concept. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that this is only a concept of a concept, that the so-called paradigm, since it doesn't seem to be described in any detail, doesn't actually exist. I guess this could be a "programming concept", or something like that, but I don't think it's correct for it to be called a "paradigm". Darklink259 (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by included refs and external links. ~KvnG 00:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never Back Loosers Cricket Team

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

Non-notable cricket club. No coverage in reliable sources to show notability, so fails WP:CRIN and WP:GNG. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails WP:CRIN. but with a name like that, how can this be a serious cricket team? LibStar (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator's rationale. I edited the page when I stumbled across it and discovered that the original author had used the Chennai Super Kings article as a template, leaving some of the references in place. This gave the appearance of the team having notable references on websites such as ESPN. I am not accusing the author of doing it intentionally to mislead of course, because it is the only article he has ever created. I also note that he is listed in the team's squad. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable team with mis-spelt name ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a Facebook page and a couple of YouTube videos do not equal notability. Helenabella (Talk) 07:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (WP:SNOW). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FITGIRLCODE

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears to be about a blog, though the article is too vaguely written to make this clear. The only English-language reference does not mention the subject. Maproom (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. ukexpat (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are lots of non-English hits on a Google News search. Can't tell if they're relevant, though. This article seems to be from the Dutch-language version of Glamour, but the Google Translate version seems to be more of a sponsored challenge for readers than a description of the blog. I gave up after going a few pages deeper and not seeing anything really exciting. Maybe someone should go pester a Dutch editor? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems most likely that this site is not yet notable, but the creator of the page is attempting to gain publicity for it in order to make it so. However, that is not what Wikipedia is for. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable blog that fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It also seems (though I am not sure) that the site's founder, Aranka van der Voorden, would more likely pass the notability test, and an article on the person would be a logical place to mention the site she has founded (possibly the target of a redirect from this term). Dwpaul ^Talk 23:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The non-English sources do not appear to be address the subject in detail (based on an admittedly difficult use of Google translate) and therefore the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Deli nk (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in the current references. While I did not look for additional sources, I did check

Alexa. This website ranks #278,190 in the world, 13,738 in the Netherlands, and 168,861 in the United States. Visitors are 46% from the Netherlands, 42% from the US, and 12% from other countries. If better (!) references are added to the article, I will be happy to review my position. gidonb (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything better than trivial mentions, so I guess I'll join the pile-on. There are many hits at Glamour.nl, but, as far as I can tell, they are all sponsored content, articles written by the founders of fitgirlcode, or trivial mentions. Maybe a Dutch-speaking editor could do a better job, and if they can find third-party reliable sources, then the the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blog is non-notable and overt promo as is. Jppcap (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Artcle's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aubry roach

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

I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I sense that he is "emerging". When he has demonstrably emerged, and has some books, exhibitions and so on to his name, he may qualify for an article. Till then, alas no. -- Hoary (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of rich Internet application formats

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

This is in fact a Chimera article: While it is called "List of rich Internet application formats", it is a slapdash list consisting of runtime environments and programming languages. A very hilarious feature of this article is adding "operating system" columns for formats!

Another article called List of rich Internet application frameworks does a much better job, making any prospect of improvements absurd. Codename Lisa (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's not a great article and it could certainly be improved, but I don't see why it should be deleted. The reasons provided are mostly personal opinions as, for instance, I don't think it's weird to list the OSes that support the formats, but even if it was it's not a reason for deletion. Laurent (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, tiny, abandoned and redundant. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It isn't at all clear what this article is supposed to be about. It seems like a fairly random collection of Internet tools. The title says "Internet Application Formats" which sounds like it is referring to open standards like Javascript. But then it includes specific development environments which are quite different than a "format". The list is a complete hodge podge of programming tools for the Internet with very little in common. Also, no references at all. I don't see how it could be improved because there is no clear idea what it is supposed to be about. Strong delete. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find much in the way of reliable sources for "rich Internet application format"; I don't think it is a notable concept." Rich Internet application framework" is a notable concept and discussed in many sources, some of which are reliable. List of rich Internet application frameworks could use some cleanup itself, but it is a solid list-class article with a notable topic backing it. I disagree with the nom about OS columns. Any RIA framework, even if it is purely browser based, is going to have browser requirements (do any of these frameworks run on, e.g., NCSA Mosaic?) and thus have underlying OS dependencies. --Mark viking (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments for this article's inclusion have been made. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drumkit from Hell

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

I couldn't establish that this product meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saundra Williams

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

I declined SNUGGUMS' PROD on the basis that the subject meets WP:BAND criterion 2, and I still believe that because Williams meets this, her article shouldn't be subject to an under-the-rug PROD that would easily expire due to low article traffic.

Nevertheless, charting two songs on a relatively obscure component chart shouldn't be an automatic exemption from failing broader notability standards, and there isn't too terribly much coverage of Williams. Beyond passing mentions and a brief AllMusic review of one of her singles, I could not find any significant secondary coverage. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per insufficient coverage. I personally don't see the problem with PRODing, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see enough coverage to warrant an article either, despite the two 'hits'. — sparklism ^hey! 09:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Double Dhamaal#Soundtrack. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jalebi Bai

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

Contested prod-a unotable song that could be redirected to a film (there is no speedy for songs hence why I'm doing this) Wgolf (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find enough info to justify a separate article for this song. If anyone else can then that is great. The only other option would be to Redirect to Double Dhamaal#Soundtrack. MarnetteD|Talk 04:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Wgolf: there is a speedy for songs but does not applied in this case. See WP:A9, it applies to article about a musical recording that has no corresponding article about its recording artist and does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (both conditions must be met). Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Double Dhamaal. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Double Dhamaal#Soundtrack, it was quite famous when it came out.--Hindust@ni^{क्या करें? बातें!} 15:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Article was deleted by creator's request and re-made as a redirect. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bellator 137

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

We've been through this process and it was ultimately decided Bellator MMA pages would be done by season/year. No need for this to have its own stand alone entry. Udar55 (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - No, it was decided that Bellator season events would not have their own articles. For the first time, Bellator is not going off a season basis. This is even mentioned on the Bellator MMA in 2015 page. It's still early in the year and I can create pages for the other 2015 events as well. It's not a matter of notability as Bellator is factually the second biggest MMA promotion in the world. If WSOF can have its own articles, why can't Bellator? I understand why it was decided that Bellator season events stay on one page. But as of 2015, Bellator has turned over a new leaf as to how they classify their events. Not as a season but in a way similar to UFC. If Bellator has made that change, why can't we? This is not a long-term project, it is very doable. And I can do the work if everyone else doesn't want to. WWE Batman131 (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If Bellator has made that change, why can't we?" Because it has already been decided that Bellator doesn't need stand alone pages. I've been handling the Bellator pages since day one and fought against the change to one page/seasons, but Wikipedia ruled against it. So I'm going by the rules they set. It appears you weren't even here then, so perhaps you should read this before insisting on changes on your own accord. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 7#Bellator Udar55 (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting from the peanut gallery Wikipedia if it does rule it is by consensus. The discussion Udar55 pointed out was done in 2011 and circumstances can and do change. I think it might be worth a revisit considering the changes in Bellator format. I have no opinion which direction it should go.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to save WWE Batman131 (and the MMA Wiki project) some time as individual Bellator pages will eventually get deleted. And a show headlined by Kendall Grove isn't particularly notable in the first place. Udar55 (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got that. I agree that the consensus right now is no individual pages.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from Udar. I don't want to change the past. I only want to create lone articles for Bellator events post-season 11 as Bellator is no longer being done in seasons. I don't mind creating pages for the other 6 events. It should only take a couple of days. But I don't want to stir up trouble. If you guys are worried or concerned still, I'll rest my case. Oh and lol, yes I know an event headlined by Kendall Grove doesn't seem that notable, but neither does one headlined by David Branch and Ronny Markes, right? WWE Batman131 (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An MMA event scheduled for May that appears to have 1 announced fight. I see nothing that shows this fight card meets WP:EVENT. Papaursa (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a reason for deletion but if you want I can leave it as a redirect as more fights will be announced over the next few weeks. This is what's almost always done with UFC events. WWE Batman131 (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is not meeting WP:EVENT not a reason for deletion? Papaursa (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because most UFC fight cards have one fight announced at first and they still have articles. We leave redirects for those pages until more fights are announced. Based on what you're saying, 95% of UFC event articles would be deleted upon creation. I know this because I have experience editing articles as such. Your username does not seem very familiar when it comes to MMA articles, so how could you know how things have been done. I've already done the same with the Bellator 137 article. If you'd like, I can request opinions from experienced MMA article editors just like Udar. WWE Batman131 (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that Papaursa goes much further back with MMA articles than you do - that only reflects your recent activity not his. Neither matters.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean any disrespect. What I'm saying is that I can ask for opinions from other experienced MMA event article editors, if you'd like. WWE Batman131 (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the editors I'm speaking of: Gsfelipe94, Ppt1973, Imhungry4444, Psycho-Krillin, and SQGibbon. WWE Batman131 (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing that shows this fight card will be historically significant or produce anything other that routines sports reporting, so it fails both GNG and EVENT. Mdtemp (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hofstra quidditch

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

The article is an orphaned stub, and the subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I conducted the requisite searches, and there is no significant outside coverage of the subject. The article cites no sources unrelated to the subject. The subject is a team playing a sport that is becoming gradually more notable, and plays for a university which is notable, but per WP:INHERITORG, this does not establish sufficient notability. Since the articles creation over a year ago, it has not expanded from the initial stub, and given the lack of sources, it is unlikely to expand anytime in the foreseeable future. WantaghNY (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing GNG or possibly redirect to US Quidditch#Teams in the US. When they make the sports pages of a newspaper, then we can talk. Until then, we'll just have to muggle through without it. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearing rocket

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

This seems to have been created back in 2006 starting with a mechanical translation of a German Wikipedia article on a specific rocket and has seen some minimal updating over the years to pull in possibly related notions. From what I can see the whole thing is a synthesis, and there is no such term or concept. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that such a thing exists, no WP:RS. -- 120.17.113.201 (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- it looks rather as if a newspaper story on this German rocket invented a headline "Disappearing rocket". Unless there is clear corroboration, this does not merit an article. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's subject is found to be promotional and to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madinah Institute for Leadership and Entrepreneurship (MILE)

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

Advert. Whole article reads like a prospectus with peacock terms and marketing language everywhere. Dolescum (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 16:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 16:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be advertising for a non-notable business. Helenabella (Talk) 07:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Artcle's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Havelock

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

Article for fictional character, consists almost entirely of plot summary from one film, with very little real-world significance. Fru1tbat (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 16:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 16:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteBasically this is fancruft. Non-notable character.TheLongTone (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SmarTours

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

In spite of the apparent large number of references, does not meet WP:GNG. The references are all either press releases, promotional placements, advertisements, articles containing a quote from the CEO but not saying anything about smartours, or the company homepage itself. Also violates WP:COI, as the article creator is an officer of the company. ubiquity (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is my analysis of the 17 references.

press release
directory listing
directory listing
contains a quote from CEO, but does not say anything about the company
bad link? i saw no text beyond the title, maybe there's some sort of paywall?
company homepage
promotional
advertisement
advertisement
promotional
press release
contains a quote from CEO, but does not say anything about the company
promotional
contains a quote from CEO, but does not say anything about the company
promotional
promotional
home page

I don't see any evidence of notability here. ubiquity (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Removing the speedy tag from this article was a poor call: the assertion of notability is slimmer than a slim thing and as noted the "references" are virtually all bordering on spamlinks. Promotional article about dull travel agency.TheLongTone (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Ubiquity on the source analysis. It seems pretty much the entire volume of material about this company available on the internet is in the article, and none of it is sufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – article has a history of creation/deletion, remains promotional with this version--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as WP:A7. Just Chilling (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tapan jyoti Das.

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

Not notable, un-sourced. BollyJeff | talk 14:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 16:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – Meets A7, no indication of importance or significance in the article Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result was keep. Consensus herein is for article retention. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Art Jimmerson

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

Non notable fighter fails notability CrazyAces489 (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a stellar record but does meet WP:NBOX through is NABF title fights.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Losing a series of NABF fights seems an unlikely way to be notable and I think is another indication that WP:NBOX is too generous. However, consensus prevails and he does appear to meet WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am by no means an MMA/UFC historian, but I have read a lot about Jimmerson with regard to UFC 1. To my understanding, the original point to UFC was more of 'who is the best fighter with the best style' as opposed the the hybrid fight style of today. Jimmerson was the boxer representative and boxing was then and still is a major fighting style (e.g., commercially, fan support, etc.). I think a lot has been written about this fact and in general about UFC 1 (for example see [1], [2], and [3]). I know this does not meet WP:NMMA, but think it supports GNG being met. RonSigPi (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's subject is found to not be verifiable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Dynasty Of World

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

Title is confusing and does not match with the content! , claim of being oldest is also propostures! Shrikanthv (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, but if kept rename 'Katoch dynasty'. The article has huge issues: English is terrible, the title is somewhat POV, listing all members of that dynasty may be inappropriate, "now present 488th ruler of Kangra" is more than dubious (I thought Indian governments were elected?). When all is said and done, it might still be notable enough to warrant an article (though not that article). Tigraan (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uses unreliable sources for the claim, making the topic unverifiable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 17:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coming Up Roses: Sacramento Remembers Elliott Smith

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

Does not appear to satisfy notability criteria. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence of satisfying WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Further, none of the artists appear notable. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Memory: A Tribute to Elliott Smith

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to satisfy criteria. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 17:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence of satisfying WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Elliot Smith. I added a brief statement about the album at the Elliot Smith page. JodyB_talk 12:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Tribute to Elliott Smith

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to satisfy criteria. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 17:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge with Elliot Smith. An AllMusic source confirms the album's release and a track listing, but I can't find anything in Rolling Stone specifically about the album, or via a news search. I'm surprised, I thought something like this would have a number of reviews, but it seems not. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glory 21: San Diego

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY yet; perhaps WP:TOOSOON, perhaps will never happen. Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Upcoming kickboxing event scheduled for May. The only coverage is routine sports reporting consisting of fight announcements. There's nothing to show the fights or event constitute anything that would meet WP:EVENT. Papaursa (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not all fight cards are notable (most aren't). Nothing to show historical significance or anything but routine sports coverage. Fails GNG and EVENT. Mdtemp (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 23:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inert gas asphyxiation

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

Non-notable. Article fails WP:GNG. There isn't even a reference that this term is actually used by anybody but the creator of this article. The whole article has been constructed by OR, patching together material on an range of different material. there's no evidence provided that this subject is more notable than "clothing asphyxiation" or "smoke asphyxiation" or a dozen other kinds of asphyxiation. Mark Marathon (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The title and scope of the article both seem to be a reasonable and there's plenty of coverage out there such as this. The only issue I see is that there's no mention of the hazard of asphyxiation by halon fire suppression systems. Andrew D. (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Asphyxia - I do not agree with the accusation that the whole article is original research, but a merge seems in order. If notability is met for a standalone article, maybe rename, but do not delete. Tigraan (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not OR in the least. Thousands of Google hits on the term apart from Wikipedia quotes, several Google Scholar uses, and currently in US national news. Dozens of pertinent sources, all very much on-topic. EllenCT (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Davidson. This is an important class of asphyxia, with massive literature available. I second the need to refer to the hazard of asphyxiation by halon fire suppression systems. Inert gases like helium and nitrogen are grouped together (logically and in the literature) since their mechanism of action is the same (in contrast to say, carbon monoxide). -- 120.17.113.201 (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The citations there now aren't remotely similar to OR. I'd also keep it as a standalone article due to the crucial differences between it & 'regular' asphyxia, its (related) routine use in 'humane' animal slaughter, assisted suicide, and the growing push to use it for executing people in the USA. —xyzzy 13:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see those "crucial differences", hence my 'merge' !vote. All in all, it's still oxygen lacking to the lungs. Am I missing something? Tigraan (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The differences are that the lungs are working properly (unlike compressive asphyxia), and the oxygen transport in the blood is working normally (unlike carbon monoxide poisoning), but there is no oxygen in the gas being breathed. The article doesn't fully explain it, but in inert gas asphyxiation (unlike many other forms), the victim is often completely unaware that there is a problem. -- 120.17.74.76 (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The literal term need not have any currency - the term defines itself and as such, represents a free-standing subject of interest. I accessed it on a "keywords" basis, and it turned out to be quite what I was looking for. The gains from merging can be captured through cross-references. 184.33.61.97 (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Not sure why this was never closed much much sooner but there we go, As per schools are kept per SCHOOLOUTCOMES (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse Christian School

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

Non-notable and unreferenced for 5 years. Article sites only the school's own webpage and some newspaper article noting that studenst at the shcool played a game. Mark Marathon (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article reads like it has been written by an officer of the school to advertise its services. Syek88 (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A bona fide high school with plenty of news coverage easily found by a basic Google News search, this is clearly notable according to the notability standards applied to high schools. The multiple state championships won by this school attest to its status. Like many school articles, this article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. St Anselm (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly legitimate article per longstanding consensus and precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schooloutcomes and there are many reliable references about this school. Delibzr (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Outcomes, NSCHOOL. Jacona (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JodyB_talk 13:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Jones

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

Speedy-delete-tagged as attack page, but see Talk:James F. Jones. Should the article be reverted to as at 20:26, 11 January 2015? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Remove slander, add in-line referenced info about an accomplished scholar and academic administrator.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete this biography of a living person and start over. This person is notable but slanderous content as well as implied wrongdoing based on limited evidence such as the ranking of Trinity before and after his tenure as president is original research puts Wikipedia at risk. Criticisms should be referenced in reliable 3rd party sources and not simply implied. RadioFan (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP Subject is regularly in the news. Any items which are not properly referenced can be removed. User:roberto incognito — Preceding undated comment added 13:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment recent removal of OR and potentially libelous content have resolved issues with content in the article, however an admin should clean out history prior to this edit. RadioFan (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP Subject is currently in the news, and the criticisms are well referenced. Any future items which are not properly referenced should be removed. Doug (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP but revise. News coverage of him presiding over the suicide of a 114 year old college argues for notability. But revision needed for chronological order, and for selection of what is encyclopedia-worthy and what is not.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 17:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with changes and Semi-Protect The subject is clearly very notable, but the extent of the BLP violations that are being introduced by vandals is not acceptable. I have made attempts to clean up this article in the past, but it a number of ip editors with grudges against this person (this is a given considering his controversial status) have reintroduced it. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dinesh Subasinghe. JodyB_talk 13:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karuna Nadee

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

Article fails WP:NALBUMS in that it hasn't charted, won any major awards, received significant airplay or being part of a notable media performance. All the Sri Lankan newspaper articles on Karuna Nadee seem to be based on press releases and/or interviews with its composer and only prove that the album existed not its significance. It should be noted that on the article's talk page the claim that the album was "the first Buddhist oratorio" has been conclusively disproven. Dan arndt (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karuna Nadee deletion is an unfair Decision. Last month Dan arndt deleted Rawan Nada Article of mine ,he mentioned that it has no recognition and importance,then i gave many web links about it,and he mentioned it all about Dinesh Subasinghe and his album Karuna Nadee, now i will present this link about its record,its was the most sold instrumental album in sri lanka,sri lanka is a country with a small population 20 million,so it wont be like a hollywood production,i try my best to bring out the data of local artists to the world,valuable things are happening here,so why cant wikipedia support us to bring our data to the world,we have a historical heritage for 2500 years and still some important art work are happening,event after 30- years war
- Rawan nada most soled Instrumental Album Reference
- http://www.sundaytimes.lk/150308/magazine/dinesh-records-highest-sale-for-an-instrumental-139029.html
- http://www.sundaytimes.lk/150308/magazine/tv-times/
- Rawan nada has been deleted ,but it was the first ever music album by the historical instrument known as Ravanahatha
- Dan arndt saying it dosen't have any recognition or importance
- Karuna Nadee is an album after decades based on an Oratorio.its very rare to find Album based an oratorio. please do some fair response for my articles Rawan Nada and Karuna Nadee.

Off-topic material on Rawan Nada

Noita

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

It's a definition, more appropriate to Wikitionary, should be transfered or merged with Finnish Shamanism Jerodlycett (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The word doesn't have any different meaning in Finnish than witch. The article Tietäjä (wise man/seer) by the same user is very similar and should also be only in Wiktionary. --Pudeo ' 03:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pudeo is right. It's a dictionary entry. bbx (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Grossman

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

No significant or independent coverage. Google results show social media and short pages intended to promote him as a doctor. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update Not even the external links give real info about him! --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got two different Peter Grossmans. The doctor is an LA plastic surgeon; the professor is at Butler University in Indianapolis. The Butler page seems to be down, but here's another one by the university. There's also an Amazon page and a well-trafficked blog that called Grossman's book the "Energy book of the year" in 2013. --76.105.88.229 (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Assuming the article is intended to be about economics Professor Peter Z. Grossman, he is quiet obviously a notable author. He is described in one review as "the preeminent historian of American energy policy."[4] The initializer (talk) 06:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C5. It's clear the nominator intended this particular Grossman (who is an academic, not a physician), because he listed the AfD in the correct deletion sorting categories. But he doesn't seem to have familiarized himself with Wikipedia academic notability standards before making this nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep deletion was simple case of mistaken identity. Article itself is now clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per SK1 & all that fun stuff. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rianna Loving

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

Withdrawn by nominator after additional sources added. Though one source is a apsssing mention, I believe it meets requirements to survive as a stub.Flat Out let's discuss it 03:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLPNOTE. Apart from one source to confirm the subject has a company and a few like this that indicate she had a minor acting career, there is nothing to support the notability of the subject. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that before nominating this for deletion, the nominator basically blanked the article. If anyone wants to evaluate the article as it was actually written, it is here: [5]. Full disclosure: I was the person who removed ~~Flat Out's~~ the original speedy tag, saying I didn't think the article qualified for A7 or G11. I have no opinion about this AfD, but it does bother me to see someone gut an article and then nominate for deletion the empty shell that remains. --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction MelanieN you removed another editor's speedy tag (User:Trivialist) - here and noted that "deleting speedy tags: there are credible claims of significance, and promotion can be handled by editing. Other avenues of deletion remain available." I also nominated it for speedy deletion because it appeared blatantly promotional but noticed it had previously been nominated for speedy deletion and removed that tag. I then reviewed the article line by line and found it was full of unspported claims about the subject, and contained many inline urls to external company websites associated with the subject. I also removed two tables, one being an unsourced list of acting roles, and one being a list of links to product advertising. I agree with User:Trivialist that it warranted speedy deletion. Feel free to review any of my edits and I will happily debate them. I also corrected my edit summary that imdb profile appeared fake. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the error. I misread the history. --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN would you be kind enough to do an early close? Flat Out let's discuss it 03:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 herein is for deletion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal–Rajput War (1558–78)

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

There are no sources that state there was a continuous 20 year war between the Mughals and Rajputs. Kansas Bear (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~, as nom. This article has been recreated to push a POV which is not supported by historical fact. The Akbar the Great article clearly shows his campaigns against numerous groups and is heavily referenced. Someone has tried to take those campaigns and re-write history to suit their own personal POV. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Duplicate !vote above from nominator has been struck. Feel free to comment all you'd like, though. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only source (on archive.org) is a book published in 1931, and reading the preface casts doubts about reliablity. If someone can come up with a reliable source, I will change my !vote (even if the article would need serious cleanup). Tigraan (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a hoax. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while there is some passing mention of this conflict in reliable sources, none appear to give the subject significant coverage. Of course there maybe non-online sources available, but based on what can be found online, I cannot see this event being notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 –Davey2010^Talk 15:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swings (rapper)

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

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Galvan (rapper) and Swings (rapper) as delete but significant procedural errors have been brought to my attention that merit the articles being undeleted and relisted. I do not have a particular opinion on the merits of the article. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. At least one non-trivial RS: [6]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent sourcing and multiple chart-rankings should be a clear indication of his notability Asdklf; (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's notable. Putting "스윙스" into Naver yields lots and lots and lots of results about him. The Wikipedia article is sourced from mostly non-RS, but nearly all kpop articles are. There is plenty of information on this guy out there in RS, but most of it's probably in Korean. Shinyang-i (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shinyang-i - Keep !voters need to provide sources .... So list 10 & I'll close this. –Davey2010^Talk 04:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I thought someone would just go do what I described: Naver search with his name. There are at least 10 news articles listed there with his name in the title that were published just in the last 24 hours. He's on a popular TV show right now, so he's getting plenty of coverage. (Why am I the only commenter being asked to do this? ha ha) Shinyang-i (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shinyang-i - As this is an English language 'pedia it's very unlikely no one's ever heard of "Naver" hence me asking for 10, Don't take it personally :), Anyway thanks for linking :) –Davey2010^Talk 15:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uladzimir Levaneuski

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

Completing nomination for User:Трисектор, who added the AfD tag with the edit summary delete: no notability, self PR. ansh 666 01:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From what I can gather, he was arrested alongside his dad after organizing a bunch of protests in Belarus, and spent some days in jail. Although he has been clearly been detained from the police many times, there isn't any indication as to why he is notable. His page says that he was the chairman of a strike committee back in 2006, and that in 2014 he led some more committees. But the organizations themselves don't seem to be notable within themselves. While his father, Valery, has been recognized as a "prisoner of conscience" by Amnesty International, Uladzimir did not gain that recognition. It is fair to say that Uladzimir does not meet the notability guidelines, as he has not had enough significant coverage to be notable enough for an article. Aerospeed (Talk) 13:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are reliable sources in the article. Furthermore in RU wiki notability of this person already was discussed. The result of the discussion was keep.--Lomtikov (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has plenty of reliable sources. The article quality leaves something to be desired, but quality is not a reason for deletion. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth G. Eade

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

This is a heavily promotional BLP. The subject is an author, lawyer, and businessman, but has achieved notability in none of these fields. His books are self-published, and have been reviewed only in venues specific to self-published works. The article is overrun with references, but the closest he comes to coverage in a traditional reliable source is a barely-more-than-passing mention in a 2002 blog post at Forbes. Contested prod. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has been quoted as an expert in many media articles, cited as references in the article, his cases against Experian and Equifax and Chase have achieved notoriety, and have been quoted in the media as well. He has co-written and produced a feature film, Say it in Russian, which is the subject of a separate article on Wikipedia, and his latest self published novel, "A Patriot's Act," is being republished and will be on sale this summer in Walmarts, Costco, Barnes and Nobel and other bookstores coast to coast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valentia Nesterova (talk • contribs) 10:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC) — Valentia Nesterova (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Don't see promotional bio here, only biographic info. City Book Review, MBR, Digital JournalEContent, Washington Examiner, FPA, Nice Matin, Guardian all reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeivak (talk • contribs) — Georgeivak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. The only full-length piece comes from a Digital Journal interview, "a media business where everyone can contribute and engage"," so we don't have any real reliable sources. This appears to be written by someone close to the subject as well, thus the overly promotional tone. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not Delete~~. I have added references to Say it in Russian, a theatrically released feature film that the subject is known to have produced and co-written. These are traditional media such as Honolulu Weekly, La Stamps, La Verdad, The Dallas Observer and The Riverfront Times, as well as video news reels in the 16 states that the film played in, which included the subject as the producer.

http://sayitinrussianmovie.com/resources/New+Riviera+article.pdf Jump up ^ http://sayitinrussianmovie.com/resources/MONACO+GAZETTE+ARTICLE+0608.pdf Jump up ^ http://sayitinrussianmovie.com/resources/la+stampa+article.pdf Jump up ^ http://sayitinrussianmovie.com/resources/la+verdad.pdf Jump up ^ http://sayitinrussianmovie.com/resources/starslife+article.pdf Jump up ^ http://www.gettyimages.com/editorial/agata-gotova-pictures Jump up ^ "Carmike Cinemas Hosts Premiere for Independent Film". TriCities.com. Jump up ^ "Carmike Cinemas Hosts Premiere for Independent Film". wjhl.com. 25 April 2009. Jump up ^ http://www.riverfronttimes.com/movies/say-it-in-russian-697551/ Jump up ^ http://www.dallasobserver.com/movies/say-it-in-russian-1288366/ Jump up ^ http://www.citypages.com/movies/say-it-in-russian-837865/ Jump up ^ http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/movies/say-it-in-russian-750173/ Jump up ^ http://wdef.com/news/say_it_in_russian_movie_premier_in_chattanooga/04/2009 Jump up ^ http://www.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/carmike_cinemas_hosts_premiere_for_independent_film/23370/ Jump up ^ http://sayitinrussianmovie.com/resources/Russian+article+032909.pdf Jump up ^ http://sayitinrussianmovie.com/resources/http___honoluluweekly.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valentia Nesterova (talk • contribs) 12:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not Delete~~.: Also added reviews on two books from notable source Midwest Book Review

Valentia Nesterova (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Valentina Nesterova[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple book and movie reviews. It does have problems with overref but it is easily fixed. -- GreenC 12:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Green Cardomon, writing because I have seen how exacting you are on other pages. You probably know if reviews for a single movie qualifies him. But you may not realize that Midwest Book Review & San Francisco Book Review sound like real book review publications, but they aren't. I could not find a single review in an edited book review of any of his books in a "real" publication.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Per WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple book reviews and work was made into a feature film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valentia Nesterova (talk • contribs) 09:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ His non-fiction book is used for course material at University of Oklahoma College of LawValentia Nesterova (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Valentia Nesterova[reply]
- You can comment as much as you want, but you're only allowed 1 !vote. I've struck all your other !votes. Natg 19 (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blow it up. WP:ADMASQ, and the antics going on in this AfD aren't doing the article any favors either. Pax 09:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reluctant keep. Most of the sourcing is worthless. Some, like Midwest Book Review looks like an edited, selective book review, but isn't. San Francisco Book Review looks even sketchier (i.e., these appear to be commercial websites that "review" many hundreds of books each month (no real book review review 600 books a month), but are commercial businesses that generate revenue, advertising and traffic by having titles that make them appear to be real. Not clear to me that being nominated for a RHONE award is competitive (neither is being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, but real book awards have qualifying events that make nominations real honors). I got to footnote 19 beforee I found anything that looked like a real source. It wasn't it was a one-line promo that this author had written in his alumni mag class notes section. Sources 20-23 appear to document the fact that he married his wife. Who cares? Then , at source # 27, I came on something real. An article in Forbes a real article that describes Eade as a flimflam artist. Here is the section about Eade: "Just as in Hollywood, not everything meets the eye when it comes to this company. AmeriDream’s little office in Bermuda Dunes has been, or still is, the address for 14 other public and private companies, going by such names as Specialized Leasing, Herbalist and Cyber Vitamin. Behind the scenes is a small group of stock promoters and one very prolific Santa Barbara attorney, Kenneth Eade, who have put together companies that typically float in the nether regions of the over-the-counter Bulletin Board system. In 1998 one of the promoters, Russell (Skip) Nordstrom, of something called National Investors Council, was slapped by the Securities & Exchange Commission with a cease-and-desist order for failing to disclose that he was receiving payments from companies to issue glowing research reports. Nordstrom consented to the order without admitting or denying guilt. He was recently the head of investor relations of AmeriDream. Elliott came into this bunch when Eade–whose Russian wife dabbles in Hollywood and will be acting, if you can call it that..." It seems to sum this man's career up. Slogging on through more references where Eade promotes himself as, for example, an expert on genetically engineered foof (and the article begins to feel like a low end remake of Catch Me if You Can. There's even a sequence where this flimflam man impersonates a philanthropist (in Monaco) Then. In the final paragraph, it turns out that he once produced an actual movie Say It in Russian, with Faye Dunaway. And so, ladies and gentlemen, reluctant though I am to admit it (after giving his article a careful read, I'd rather see him arrested than given a page) I think that the movie and the paragraph in Forbes where the nature of his flimflammery is made clear do merit an article. I believe, however. That the article must be reduced to name, rank, and serial number, i.e. the Information from Forbes is sourced, along with the Faye Dunaway movie. All the rest of his smoke-and-mirrors self-promoting clap-trap needs to be deleted. (willing - even eager - to change my vote if producing a single real movie is not in and f itself sufficient for notability)E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the nominator - I had almost forgotten about this AfD because I took it off my watchlist due to the many repetitive posts. IMO this is as weak a case as it gets for WP:AUTHOR#3 - is a single (vanity?) co-writing credit for a barely-notable movie "a significant or well-known work"? He wasn't even mentioned in the movie's article prior to the introduction of the infobox directory information. On re-researching, though, I do find that he's been the subject of a somewhat unusual Securities Exchange Commission lawsuit and had an interesting defamation lawsuit of his own dismissed (described here and here; actual decisions are publicly available). Still don't think that makes him notable, but it's a failure of comprehensiveness in the existing article, and supports your overall assessment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Antonio Zambrano-Montes

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

Delete: Fails WP:1E. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When will people stop using WP as a newspaper? It is not an encyclopedia's function to report on current events, only if those events can be shown to have a lasting impact. Obviously, that cannot be shown within a few days of the event happening... --Randykitty (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This has been a story that has been read and seen all over the world and prompted a response from the Mexican president. It's being called the Hispanic version of Ferguson with many protests in Pasco and Washington and likely will continue that way. Have you seen how much coverage this story is getting? 98.207.226.90 (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I saw that. And my crystal ball tells me that it'll be over a week from now, with perhaps a smattering of coverage if there will be a trial. At this point, classical 1E. --Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
so we have to get rid of it now and have to create it again in case it comes back up? Why can't we just let it wait a while to see if it still remains as a big story nationally and then delete it? How come Shooting of Andy Lopez has its article? Not saying that it doesn't warrant one, but it happened in my city and it only received national attention for one day and it eventually became a non story in my city after a few weeks, except for groups of activists. Many people in my own state other than my county and some neighboring areas have probably never heard of the shooting death of Andy Lopez but that gets an article so why can't this one which had received much more coverage and even a response from the PRESIDENT OF MEXICO? 98.207.226.90 (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, my brother just had a baby son. Let's make an article on the kid. It isn't notable now, but you never know what the future might bring, so "Why can't we just let it wait a while to see if"... That's not the way it works. First we determine something is notable. Then we create an article. We're at AfD now, so the onus is on those !voting "keep" to show that this passes WP:GNG now, not "perhaps in the future". As for the shooting of Lopez article, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid during these discussions... --Randykitty (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not news. Should have waited before creating article to see whether this would have long term significance. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While not Ferguson-level, this is clearly far more notable than the routine police shooting that doesn't result in commentary from the president of the most populous country in the hemisphere. Pax 07:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draft it - Too soon, which is why the draft is suggested. Keep it there for a couple of weeks/months and see if the affects are long lasting. Currently, it doesn't seen that it will have the long standing notability required. - Pmedema (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant and ongoing national and international press coverage.Patapsco913 (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC

I admire your foresight; It happened 16 (sixteen...) days ago and yet you already know that there will be "ongoing ... coverage". Wow! --Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not a purely local matter, given the comment by Mexican President, monitoring of the situation by federal law enforcement, and further national coverage. --Djembayz (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - per WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNOW. The case is complicated. Let me quote:

Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable.

My view is that although that event could pass GNG, there is no way to really know because relevant sources are drowned in the WP:NOTNEWS. We could wait for the dust to settle; if the event is still mentioned in a couple of months, we can recreate then. (and no, "do not delete because it might be recreated, so let's save work" is not a good argument) Tigraan (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:This incident has received non-trivial, even in-depth coverage in a variety of reliable international sources of different types, and has been of political interest to the Mexican congress. That clearly puts it in a different league from run of the mill crime stories. True, we don't know for certain that it will receive long lasting coverage, but I think it is not unreasonable to expect that it will. Since the article is solidly based in a variety of non-speculative reliable sources already we should keep. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International coverage. --GRuban (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG Plenty of international news coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has adequate coverage in reliable sources. Passes notability standards. Bali88 (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would greatly appreciate if the editors !voting "keep" could explain how this does not fail WP:1E. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I readily see how standards/notability can be interpreted differently by different editors, but it is common to have articles for shootings by police that become instantly notorious. I interpret WP:1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.... as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." as covering this case. There was "large coverage" of this death.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter I. Smith

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

minor politician. no real newslinks, even less than you would expect for a politician. fails WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination, fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As A7. First District representative on the Anne Arundel County Council is not a credible claim to importance, let alone notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The consensus is that county council member is not a notable office. The main story about the subject seems to be the long, drawn-out process of his appointment, but that's also a local story. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (notability, WP:POLITICIAN, blah blah blah). As much as I would like to press the A7 button, it looks like "First District representative on the Anne Arundel County Council" is a "credible claim of importance". After all, there might be some people (from the Anne Arundel County, probably) who view the function as important. Tigraan (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above me - Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. –Davey2010^Talk 20:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the POLITICIAN high bar as not an elected politician to high or sufficiently high office. Carrite (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 English units. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tod (unit)

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to English units. The content of this page would easily fit there. This is a real, albeit obsolete, unit; see A History of Agriculture and Prices in England and Shakespeare's The Winter's Tale. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see related AfDs at WP:Articles for deletion/Salt spoon (unit), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aum (unit), WP:Articles for deletion/Calibre(unit), and more. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not dictionary material; it's weights and measures which is the stuff of an almanac. Per WP:5, almanac content is fine and we have extensive material about weights, measures and units of all kinds. The wool trade was England's main source of income for many centuries and so this is a quite a significant matter for the English wikipedia. The topic is discussed in detail in sources such as Weighing Wool in the Middle Ages. Andrew D. (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And also according to WP:5 Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information, specifically "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." This article doesn't meet this standard, it is data, with no context, cited to a single source, a source that on some occasions has proven to be inaccurate. Even though it is accurate in many cases and probably even accurate in this case, it still doesn't go beyond a dictionary definition whether it's almanac type material or not. As Imaginatorium said, this should be included in an article titled Wool measurement as there is simply not enough content for this to ever be anything other than a stub, if that. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There certainly should be an article about the weighing of wool, and the series of units used for it: from [7]: "In evidence given to the 1862 Select Committee on Weights and Measures, a Mr Greenhall said that “we have the grain, dram, drop, ounce, pound, stone, score, ton. In wool measure we have a clove, tod, wey, pack, sack or last." However, the title for such an encyclopaedia article should be "Wool measurement" or similar, and not any one of the individual units.
Should the material in this article be merged somewhere? No, because it contains zero value, just the usual Cardarelli bogus specificity and bogus precision. The page above gives a range of values for the "todd", and no doubt the spelling was also variable. Elsewhere there are Weys of 6-1/2 tods, and much local variation.
Should there be a redirect? No, because "Tod (unit)" is a disambiguation title; no-one will search for "Tod (unit)".
It would be really nice if we could have a sense of cooperation in the building of a better encyclopedia, instead of these crazy drawn-out arguments. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another non-notable unit page from Cardarelli. See all the OTHER discussions for why this, too, is not appropriate as a WP page. PianoDan (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cardarelli is a dubious source, the article is poorly written ("defined" as 1/9 Wey? unlikely; metric conversion to 8 decimal places? absurd), but the material would be better added to English units and linked to there from the dab page at Tod (where no-one has bothered to add it as yet). OED agrees that "Tod" exists, as "A weight used in the wool trade, usually 28 pounds or 2 stone, but varying locally". PamD 14:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now added a dab at Tod, but with no wikilink to English units, until someone decides to add it there as well. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Microstub based on a single source that has been conclusively proven to be unreliable. It cannot stand on its own and, if we were to have an article on wool units, none of this content would end up there. Reyk _YO! 14:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to English units. The book A Dictionary of Weights and Measures for the British Isles: The Middle Ages to the Twentieth Century, Volume 168 has a wealth of information on old English units; there is a page and a half on the tod unti for wool. The book looks reliable with the few facts on the tod carefully sourced. I have added the relevant facts and source to the tod article. With this book and the sources found by Metropolitan90, the tod as a unit seems amply verified. I agree with Andrew Davidson that as an almanac, this unit should have some place on Wikipedia, but I don't think there is enough in-depth sourcing out there to justify a standalone article, that is the topic fails WP:GNG. Merge to an appropriate target seems the best course. We have an article on Wool measurement, but it seems solely concerned with fiber diameters. It is also an example of trading standards, but again that article doesn't discuss units. English units seems the best target for now, but in the interest of consensus, I would be happy with a merge to Wool measurement as well. --Mark viking (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to English units per Mark viking and Metropolitan90, and as a reasonable alternative to deletion. The English units article barely mentions the topic, and it is verifiable. The book link in the !vote directly above doesn't display the book content, but here is a link that does. There are also the links provided by Metropolitan90, which also provide verification: [8], [9]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 no evidence has been presented in favor of this article being preserved, this article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Lutheran Study Bible

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NB. Basileias (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why did you wait a week on this one? Skippypeanuts (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to wait to see the results from the other Lutheran study Bible article. If sources were produced from there, that could affect this article, then it would justify keeping it. Basileias (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not that it matters Skippypeanuts (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence has been presented that this particular edition of the Bible satisfies WP:N. Edison (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NB. @Skippypeanuts: your !vote is somewhat lacking; care to explain? Tigraan (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax mass shooting plot

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

This is not my area of expertise but this reads like a case of WP:NOTNEWS and don't think it meets WP:PERPETRATOR either Gbawden (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Incident happened less than a week ago, and news reports are still coming in (last RS result I see is in 1 hour). If the stream of attention died out by the end of this AfD then WP:NOTNEWS definitely goes. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per fact of too early nomination. I can see current notability through good sourcing. who knows what will happen in 6 months from now. NOTNEWS does not apply here.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete clearly WP:NOTNEWS. it is WP:CRYSTAL balling to suggest long term notability in 6 months time. LibStar (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge (as a single sentence) into Columbine_High_School_massacre#Becoming_part_of_the_vernacular. This would probably be notable if there were an external terrorism angle, or the plotters actually had mowed down a lot of people at the mall. But no, there's only a single shooting in a house and some suspects with a lurid tale. Pax 09:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Continuing to generate national coverage in Canada, and coverage in Britain [10], the U.S. [11] as the accused move slowly through the legal process. Extensive coverage (both geographically and over the weeks since the arrests) meets WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per WP:RAPID. There doesn't seem to be any consensus one way or another in the present. I recommend closing as keep or no consensus for now, and then re-nominating the article in a month or two when the lasting impact of the event can be more easily determined. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Luckily this incident didn't get much further than a plot. We can't mention every single foiled news plot on Wikipedia, because it could basically bring any news story into the main article space. And as mentioned before, Wikipedia is not an arbitrary list of news articles.Aerospeed (Talk) 12:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest people by year of death

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

Unsourced table about being the oldest person to die in a particular year. No reliable sources can be found stating that X was the oldest to die in Y. Fails WP:V, WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA. PROD declined by User:JoshuaZ because: "sources are on the other lists of long-lived people. someone just needs to move them over here." CommanderLinx (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A10 Functionally duplicate of List of the verified oldest people, whose table is sortable by death date. (Probably needs some technical tweaking because it is now sorting by alphabetical order and not chronological order, but still) 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge/Redirect~~ to List of the verified oldest people, per Hisashiyarouin's rationale. That list is not currently sortable in quite the same way because of the way the dates are formatted, and I'm not sure how to fix that. But the lists do seem to be duplicates. Ivanvector (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep given that it is the same data at the List of Verified oldest people, the sources need to be moved over from there. Object to redirecting since the current list is not sortable in this way. If someone can find a way to make that list sortable in this way then I'll go with redirecting. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Just add {{dts}} to all the dates. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Compiles information about supercentarians that don't qualify on the modern list. Thus, it serves an independent purpose from the modern list that could not be rectified easily. --Thebirdlover (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it may need to be renamed for clarity. I haven't compared the names on the list to see the extent that they overlap but the scope of this list is such that the data does not necessarily duplicate list of the verified oldest people. It's a list of years and the oldest person to die that year rather than a list of oldest people organized by year. So for example if the oldest person to die that year was 80, the person would be listed here and not at the other list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see it now. This list is the oldest person to die in each year, the other is a list of the oldest people regardless of year of death (or currently living). They are very similar but not necessarily the same. Ivanvector (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 13:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinching Penny

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

This is another Dan Glaser related article. Initially I wasn't going to nominate it since the film did appear to be notable and I'd originally been planning to clean up the article and remove all of the non-usable blog and otherwise self-published sources that can't be used to show notability or even used as a trivial source. However after I cleaned the article out and tried searching for usable sources, I ended up finding that the film just isn't that notable. I found one review from Flickering Myth, but nothing else that I could consider usable. I'd originally thought the Indie Fest review would be usable, but a look at their awards section on their website shows that they're the type of film festival where they hold 3-4 festivals a year and give out hundreds of awards each year- meaning that the award wouldn't be the type that would give any notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. If anyone can find coverage I'm open for compromise. Now I do need to state that I've cleaned out the article and removed a lot of sections, so you can find the previous version of the article here. Almost none of the sources were the type that would make a difference here and I kept the halfway usable sources in the current version of the article, but the sources are pretty much self-published, merchant, primary, or otherwise unusable for the purposes of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - notability of the film will depend on if any of the various reviews can be considered a reliable source. Hopefully a WP:WikiProject Film regular can provide some insight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If any of them can find more reviews or coverage (or just make a really good argument for inclusion) I'm open to keeping this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^speak up! 05:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With some degree of reservation, I'd be willing to consider Flickering Myth a reliable source. However, that's about all that's here. I don't see any evidence that the Moviepie.com review is from a staff reviewer or even that the site isn't self-published. There's really no information at all there. Indiefest does seem notable, but I'm not convinced that an award is enough to save this article. What NFILM means by a "major award" is open to interpretation, but in my mind, it would include a citation to a third-party reliable source. The Moorhead citation looks like a classic press release, so I'm discounting that. I don't see any evidence that third party reliable sources have made the effort to report on this award, which does make it seem a bit trivial. I'll admit that there's room for argument here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator.. (non-admin closure) TheMesquito^buzz 18:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mesquite Police Department (Texas)

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

Un-notable police department, has very little info and seems only to be a graph with one person in it and a list of misconducts. TheMesquito^buzz 07:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wrote the fool thing hoping for more, but what we got is all there is to get. That being said, I am an inclusionist. I think all police departments are notable and ideally would be included. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Mesquite, Texas. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - police agency for a city of 139,000 people - but this needs a lot of editing. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it remarkable there is no fan of the local police to take this page under his wing. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A large enough department to have its own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do-ocracy

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

Does this version establish notability any better than the six previous versions which were deleted? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, most of us can't see those previous six versions... ansh 666 01:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored all previous states. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, its previous deletions weren't so much from notability, but because they thought the article author had invented the term, or it was just about a specific blog post. It dates to at least 10 years ago and is popular in the FLOSS community, but beyond that I don't know how notable it is. —ajf (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm. I'm pretty sure it isn't WP:MADEUP: I did find one (and only one) source, though the European Commission did have a conference about it. ansh 666 01:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Two sources currently - one is a dictionary of neologisms, and therefore does nothing to establish notability. The second is a reasonably reliable source but is actually about something totally different (anonymous) and merely mentions the term in passing. Although a google search suggests that the term is relatively well-used across the web, I can't see anything to suggest it's genuinely notable and not just a pun popular with bloggers and headline writers. Willing to be convinced otherwise if anyone can dig out some better sources though.Korruski^Talk 10:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheMesquito^buzz 07:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Galvan (rapper)

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

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Galvan (rapper) and Swings (rapper) as delete but significant procedural errors have been brought to my attention that merit the articles being undeleted and relisted. I do not have a particular opinion on the merits of the article. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, fails Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Notability (artists) (no reliable refs showing significant, non-trivial RS coverage). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You get slightly better search results with "carlos galvan" korean rapper. I don't see any reliable sources, though. Maybe someone who speaks Korean could check non-English sites? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Can't find any evidence of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 03:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Choosing Wisely. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ABIM Foundation

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

I do snot see evidence for notability. Everything here is their own publication. There are previous version in the history that were longer, but no better. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 13:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet notability criteria. Nakon 02:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge – to Choosing Wisely. Worthy project and a well written article, but every version that I looked at read like a summary of their website. Generally in articles about organizations we don't do mission statements. Choosing Wisely seems to be the activity that gets the most attention, by far. Lots of press releases from grant recipients. The Choosing Wisely article mentions the Foundation several times but never links to this article. I think it could use a short description of the Foundation. The other grant award program for papers seems less important. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Federale

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

I came across this article via the AfD for Tupac:187, which is one of several articles created around Michael D. Carlin, whose article I will nominate shortly. I've looked for sources for this film and I can't find where this film has actually been covered in independent and reliable sources. I can't find any mention of the review mentioned in the article and the only source that comes up for the Santa Monica Mirror is an article written by the director himself, so the film looks to fail WP:NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also per this link, it looks like the SMM now owns his newspaper, so it looks like it'd be primary even if a review did exist. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 13:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see much of anything. The Santa Monica Mirror citation was written by the director himself. I don't think it attracted any attention in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Here it got an Honorable Mention in the LA movie awards, so it's strange that there is so little written about it. But per nom that seems to be the case. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 12:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Audible Treats

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously listed for deletion here, closed due to lack of input. Originally listed by User:CorporateM for "Article pieced together with blogs, brief mentions, interviews and non-RS sources written by crowd-sourced "contributors". Article consists primarily of name-dropping. There is no indication this org is of historical significance." I agree - it's an advertisement. Citobun (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fairly obvious vote as the nominator of the first AfD, which was closed without any input from other editors. CorporateM (Talk) 07:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 13:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see the company mentioned basically as sponsors of events but not the coverage of the company that would justify an article. --Michig (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G12) by RHaworth. NAC –Davey2010^Talk 03:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Light and Mirrors Puzzle

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

Not notable. The one reference suggests this is a specific installation somewhere, not particularly notable in and of itself, and not a trend. ubiquity (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Mattwheatley (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It's a video game trope. Here is a long list at TV Tropes. Our article cites a gamer who built a physical one. I'm not going to !vote because I don't know enough about our sourcing requirements in game articles. But theoretically, since TV Tropes has a CC license, we could copy anything from there to Wikipedia (with attribution). – Margin1522 (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no prejudice against recreation provided reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taeveen

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

Delete: Google search does not show anything. Fails WP:NLI Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:GEOLAND is a guideline, unlike WP:NLI, and it recommends that any place that is legally recognized is considered notable, even if the population is low. (I personally do not like that guideline, but that's the way it is!) The question is whether this place has legal recognition - I did not find a source for that. Tigraan (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google maps is pretty good at, by now, having every podunk hamlet listed...and Taeveen is a nada. Pax 02:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any mention of this in any source anywhere. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V unless this is a nonstandard transliteration from the local language. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Usually most areas get kept .... But I can't find anything to even confirm its existence, There's absolutely nothing on Google Maps .... So either this is a Hoax or simply a very unknown area so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 22:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh National Film Award for Best Female Playback Singer

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

Yep! Another unotable award for the films made this guy. Wgolf (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/5th_Bangladesh_National_Film_Awards for massive related bundle. Pax 01:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it were referenced, this would be a reasonable WP:SPINOFF from National Film Awards (Bangladesh) as that article would become too large if the lists from each award were merged there. This split article approach is common for film awards. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a valid WP:SPINOFF. Note, the recipients in the list are individually notable per WP:MUSICBIO. --Zayeem ^(talk) 12:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National Film Awards (Bangladesh) is a government established award with a 40-years history and is notable. The creation of individual list articles for the different award categories and ceremonies is normal practice. Sourcing is likely much easier for those speaking Bengali. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh National Film Award for Best Male Playback Singer

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

Part of this series again (someone needs to merge these reports) Wgolf (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/5th_Bangladesh_National_Film_Awards for massive related bundle. Pax 01:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it were referenced, this would be a reasonable WP:SPINOFF from National Film Awards (Bangladesh) as that article would become too large if the lists from each award were merged there. This split article approach is common for film awards. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- again, as a valid WP:SPINOFF, individuals in the list are notable per WP:MUSICBIO. --Zayeem ^(talk) 12:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep again as no valid reason for deletion has been given by nom. Here is no need to merge the nominations, but withdrawal would be honourable. The reasons for !keep are the same as for the rest of the categories nominated for deletion: National Film Awards (Bangladesh) is a government established award with a 40-years history and is notable. The creation of individual list articles for the different award categories and ceremonies is normal practice. Sourcing is likely much easier for those speaking Bengali. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh National Film Award for Best Actor

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

Another page of the film awards from the same user. Wgolf (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/5th_Bangladesh_National_Film_Awards for massive related bundle. Pax 01:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it were referenced, this would be a reasonable WP:SPINOFF from National Film Awards (Bangladesh) as that article would become too large if the lists from each award were merged there. This split article approach is common for film awards. See, e.g. Academy Award for Best Actor and BAFTA Award for Best Actor. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a valid WP:SPINOFF. Highest award for Bangladeshi actors. --Zayeem ^(talk) 12:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as no valid reason for deletion has been given by nom. The reasons for !keep are the same as for the rest of the categories nominated for deletion: National Film Awards (Bangladesh) is a government established award with a 40-years history and is notable. The creation of individual list articles for the different award categories and ceremonies is normal practice. Sourcing is likely much easier for those speaking Bengali. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh National Film Award for Best Lyrics

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

Unotable film award it seems Wgolf (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/5th_Bangladesh_National_Film_Awards for massive related bundle. Pax 01:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IF this article is properly sourced to show notability (even if only in and to Bangalore), I'd be inclined to go for a keep. IF it is done, ping me.. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it were referenced, this would be a reasonable WP:SPINOFF from National Film Awards (Bangladesh) as that article would become too large if the lists from each award were merged there. This split article approach is common for film awards. See, e.g. Academy Award for Best Actor and BAFTA Award for Best Actor. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a valid WP:SPINOFF. The list could be referenced through this site. --Zayeem ^(talk) 12:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National Film Awards (Bangladesh) is a government established award with a 40-years history and is notable. The creation of individual list articles for the different award categories and ceremonies is normal practice. Sourcing is likely much easier for those speaking Bengali. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh National Film Award for Best Music Direction

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

Part of the neverending film award pages made by this user log Unotable show Wgolf (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/5th_Bangladesh_National_Film_Awards for massive related bundle. Pax 01:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it were referenced, this would be a reasonable WP:SPINOFF from National Film Awards (Bangladesh) as that article would become too large if the lists from each award were merged there. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a valid WP:SPINOFF, the individuals in the list are notable per WP:MUSICBIO. --Zayeem ^(talk) 12:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National Film Awards (Bangladesh) is a government established award with a 40-years history and is notable. The creation of individual list articles for the different award categories and ceremonies is normal practice. Sourcing is likely much easier for those speaking Bengali. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh National Film Award for Best Actress

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

Yet another page of the unotable film awards by this user who is making them. Wgolf (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/5th_Bangladesh_National_Film_Awards for massive related bundle. Pax 01:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it were referenced, this would be a reasonable WP:SPINOFF from National Film Awards (Bangladesh) as that article would become too large if the lists from each award were merged there. This split article approach is common for film awards. See, e.g. Academy Award for Best Actress and BAFTA Award for Best Actress. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a valid WP:SPINOFF. This is the highest highest award for Bangladeshi actresses. --Zayeem ^(talk) 12:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National Film Awards (Bangladesh) is a government established award with a 40-years history and is notable. The creation of individual list articles for the different award categories and ceremonies is normal practice. Sourcing is likely much easier for those speaking Bengali. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Thomas (author)

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

This article was mentioned at AN/I as having repeatedly needed to have promotional material cut out: see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents#Richard Thomas (author). All the references were primary. In searching for references to add, I have found only brief mentions, and the only awards listed are nominations, mostly as editor/publisher. I don't believe he meets WP:AUTHOR. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being published by Random House is a pretty good start. [12] Deletion now might be very short-sighted indeed. He is on the final ballot for a "Bram Stoker" award - which is a major genre award.[13] which Kirkus reviewed [14]. Co-editor was Chuck Palahniuk which appears notabe as a claim as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Random House publications are e-books (as well as still being forthcoming). The Bram Stoker nomination is as co-editor of the collection; he's barely mentioned in that Kirkus review. I'm still not seeing notability, although I'm happy to see other editors finding additional sources (and although he is frequently mentioned in blogs and e-zines as a respected editor and fellow writer). I'm hoping someone will turn up an actual article or two about him. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would point out that e-books are now a major part of the publishing industry, and we ignore them at out peril. [15] Philip Jones, editor-in-chief of the Bookseller, noted a 15% average growth in ebook sales across the main publishers. No sign of seasonal variations (which occur in the book industry) affecting the long term growth of the sector. One factor appears to be rising prices for ebooks, it appears. Collect (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wickerkat now understands what we need and has found some reviews that I've added to the article. Also they won the Best Short Story Collection award they were nominated for - announced yesterday, reference added. It's looking better, but do we have a notability criterion for editors? He's been getting nominated for awards as (co-)editor rather than for his own writing, which to my mind leaves WP:GNG if we can amass reviews for the previous books and/or individual short stories. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note that WP:AUTHOR is about "Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals". It lists nothing about winning awards, but I assume that is implicit in making an impact. Choor monster (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I chose clean up over AfD since the BLP gave the impression of probably being notable enough, and I really just wanted to stop the SPA. Would the OP consider waiting a week and consider AfD again? Choor monster (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ changed opinion to speedy keep Awards, Kirkus review, plus a Random House e-book is still an edited, Random House book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Choor monster - You now have a week to tidy/improve the article.... So I suggest you do so, I'm somewhat lost as to why you've done nothing to the article since the 25Feb, Anyway I'm not closing as Keep as either way you now have an entire week anyway. I also suggest no one else closes this as such either seeing as the !Keeps (exc Collect) are pretty poor. –Davey2010^Talk 00:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth??? My interest in this is extremely marginal. I found an article that was packed with NOTHERE by an SPA determined to keep it that way, so I asked for help on ANI, is all. We only need one good argument for Keep, why would I bother to repeat what Collect said? But if you like: winning a Bram Stoker, however marginal the category, seems absolutely conclusive to me. That's more notable than all our Yo-yo champions combined. As it is, I limited my comment to the fact that the AfD seemed to be an interfering sideshow, not a prod to improve.
As to what I've been doing this past week, I've been working on things I find interesting, both on and off WP. Choor monster (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Choor monster - Shit sorry I'd misread your post completely!, Think I'm losing the plot. –Davey2010^Talk 04:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Just close it already. Article has been cleaned up since nomination to the point where - although it could use better sourcing - it is an obvious keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite the messy AfD there is consensus that the article on the band should be deleted. I have concerns over the AfD tagging of the album articles late in the day and also the lack of edit summaries when the articles were AfD tagged but nobody has objected to deletion. Michig (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Killers (french metal band)

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

Seems like a non-notable band. There are no reliable sources cited, just a primary source (web site of the band) and a user-generated wiki-like site (not reliable). It is hart to search for sources because there are many other topics titled "Killers" including a highly popular American rock band. I tried to find some reliable sources on Google using "Killers+metal" or "killers+Bardos", but found nothing. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND, as the band in question does not have significant coverage to have reliable references necessary to certify notability. Please also consider the newly created articles Fils de la Haine and Killing Games, as the articles are a walled garden of each other, and the articles would certainly get speedy deleted under WP:CSD A9 should this article get deleted. Aerospeed (Talk) 03:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as per User:Aerospeed.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, for lack of substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. Sources provided or found seem mainly blogs, user-provided sites, or not much better. The one useful thing I found is an Allmusic bio for the band, but they do not review any of the albums. If better sourcing can be found, in English or not, I would reconsider my vote. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisting because two more articles were added on 22 February 2015, and only one !vote has occurred following the new additions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the two articles were added as per suggestion and the following Delete vote - adds up to three by my count for the additional articles.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Plenty of input here but no consensus reached. Michig (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of people killed by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom

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

Delete: This list is accusatory, defamatory, pointless and ridiculous, clearly originated by an editor with a political agenda. It contains a total of 28 names (mostly killings in Northern Ireland, including terrorists and some controversial mostly recent shootings). Many of the incidents/individuals have their own articles already. This list is a pointless minuscule fraction of deaths under a variety of circumstances, none of which are explained. How many people have been killed by UK law enforcement since 1922?? Is there a List of people killed by law enforcement officers in the Republic of Ireland or a List of people killed by law enforcement officers in France or a List of people killed by law enforcement officers in Germany or any other European country? Quis separabit? 23:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a List of killings by law enforcement officers in Germany. I will create a parent page at List of killings by law enforcement officers, which presently redirects to the US list. James500 (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. James500 (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"How many people have been killed by UK law enforcement since 1922??"--Loads, but I can only find reliable data from 2004/5 to date. For that time, the figure is 309 killed on the roads during pursuits etc., 207 died while in police custody, 506 by suicide shortly after being released from police custody, 354 "other", and 23 shot dead by police. I think this list is too large in scope and there's too little information about individual cases: it's basically unmaintainable. However, a list of people shot dead by UK police doesn't seem unreasonable: information published by the ONS ((which is where I'm getting my numbers) isn't accusatory, defamatory, pointless or ridiculous.—S Marshall T/C 23:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's highly subjective (and would demonstrate a clear anti-police agenda) to say that people killed due to police pursuits, who died in police custody or who committed suicide were killed by the police. The first and third categories by and large were responsible for their own deaths. The deaths of the middle category occurred for a variety of reasons, most of them not the fault of the police. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's true. The source calls it "Deaths during or following police contact", which is more NPOV.
    I think the conclusion we ~~all~~ all except James500 seem to be reaching is that we need to delete this list. But a "List of people shot dead by UK police" might be workable.—S Marshall T/C 00:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - We have not all come to that conclusion. I have already decided this is a valid topic (no comment on the existing content). I am under the impression that BLP is a non issue if a killing happened so long ago that all the parties must have died of old age by now, so that can't automatically preclude this topic. I see no reason to confine the list to shootings. I am under the impression that it is possible for a person to be killed by a baton, where this weapon causes a skull fracture or brain damage: [16] [17]. I am under the impression that it is possible for a person to be killed by certain "restraining techniques" that essentially involve choking the victim. I am under the impression that it is possible for a person to be killed by being pushed over onto a concrete pavement if they hit their head. Where A puts B in fear of violence, and B is fatally injured while trying to escape (such as where B jumps out of a window because he is being shot at with a gun and is killed by the fall), this could be classified as manslaughter the last time I checked (see eg Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 1999, para 19-10). I am under the impression that pepper sprays and Tasers can kill. I don't see why such killings should be excluded. James500 (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, they can all kill. So can many other things. However, a list like like this highly POV as it tacitly suggests (even if not worded as such) that all deaths occurring during or after police contact were the "fault" of the police and therefore probably unjustified. If this is not the case, why do we not have the articles List of people killed by builders in the United Kingdom or List of people killed by doctors in the United Kingdom (that would be a long one if it covered anyone who died during or after contact with a doctor!)? We never will, because there is no political capital to be gained out of such lists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry, James500, I've corrected that. Although I agree with Necrothesp that this list should be deleted, I don't think it should be deleted because it's political. Firstly because deaths that take place around police interventions are a legitimate matter of concern, published by the ONS and often reported on by mainstream media, and secondly because even if the list is politically motivated, I don't see why that means we have to delete it. I think Necrothesp is advocating the right outcome for the wrong reasons.—S Marshall T/C 12:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Statistics on deaths in hospitals or in road accidents are also published and are often seen by the media as legitimate causes for concern. Does that make a list of people who die in hospital or road accidents valid? Such lists are by their very nature POV and are going to be selective, and we have a policy which applies to this. I think it would be very hard indeed to keep such a list NPOV and of a workable size. What criteria should we use for choosing who is included in such a list? I have no problem with a list of people shot dead by police officers in the UK, as that is incredibly rare, not part of everyday life, and including everyone who was shot dead by the police is a fact and not especially POV. I also have no problem with a list of people who died during police contact in cases where the courts found a police officer was criminally liable. Again, that's a fact. Including everyone James500 wants to include, however, clearly is POV. Why should we, for instance, include someone on a list who was drunk, got into a fight with a police officer, fell over and fatally banged their head, but not someone who was drunk, got into a fight with a random passerby, fell over and fatally banged their head? Unless he's found guilty of an offence in a court of law, is the police officer any more to blame because he's a police officer? No, of course not. But including the drunken idiot on the list implies he is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        A list of people killed by doctors might be appropriate. There is, for example, such a thing as medical negligence and some doctors are apparently serial killers. Likewise with a list of people killed by building defects. It would depend on whether it satisfies LISTN.
        
        The problem with confining this list to cases where the police officer was criminally liable is that laws inherently have their own POV, especially where parliamentary sovereignty theoretically allows anything whatsoever to be put on (or taken off) the statute book. Why, for example, should we exclude a killing done in the course of enforcing a particularly unpopular law? "Parliament says its okay" isn't NPOV, it is Parliament POV. Likewise with precedents and other sources of law. Conversely, why should we include a killing that was held criminal by the courts but which the vast majority of the public, rightly or wrongly, thought was 'morally justified'? Including all killings is arguably only way to neutrality.
        
        I can't see why including all killings should imply they are all improper either. It could just as easily be alleged to imply they were all justified. I don't think it implies anything at all. James500 (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no more useful, notable or coverage-worthy than List of people killed by aeroplane propellers in the United Kingdom or List of people killed by badgers in the United Kingdom. There isn't even consistency in the article - criminals? mistakenly killed? anti-terror operations? is MI5 "law enforcement"? hit by a car driven by an off-duty cop? What about deaths in custody or those prior to the 20 century? Executions carried out by law enforcement? [[List of people <variable> by <variable> in <variable>]]. Like a Mr Potato Head. We could have some fun with articles like that! Just nonsense. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded on that score as well. Quis separabit? 23:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any reliable source that asserts that a person has ever been killed by a badger. We do, however, have a lists of people killed by dogs and cougars, and a list of crocodile attacks. I don't think the comparison is valid because there isn't, as far as I am aware, a body of literature on the subject of "badger brutality". There is, however, a large body of literature on the use of lethal force by police officers eg [18] [19]. James500 (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again, you see. You're suggesting that police use of lethal force automatically equals police brutality! I don't know whether you have a political stance on this or not, but your choice of language does suggest you do. And that's the fundamental problem with the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not suggested that police use of lethal force automatically equals police brutality. I do not think that having a list of all people killed by police officers suggests it either. My language does not suggest that I have any political stance whatsoever. James500 (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has the potential of being a decent article. However, as it stands, it is a BLP nightmare. Cleary Jean Charles de Menezes and Mark Duggan are defined by how they died. Maybe WP:NUKE this and start again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's why (and the only reason why) Duggan and Menezes, or at least their deaths, have their own articles. Quis separabit? 13:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Lugnuts: I think you mean to refer to the essay sometimes called WP:NUKEANDPAVE. WP:NUKE redirects to Wikipedia:Nuke which is about a media wiki extension that allows mass deletion of multiple pages. James500 (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is obviously a valid topic. I think that it is inconceivable that homicides by police officers in any sizeable country will not satisfy LISTN. That is the consensus we have come to every time we have had this discussion, starting with nomination of the list for the United States a number of years ago. And as this is arguably a daughter list of the worldwide topic, it doesn't have to be independently notable either, because LISTN says that we can spin off daughter lists without regard to notability. The number of killings is not a plausible objection, as we are NOTPAPER, and the US list will be much longer. James500 (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In this instance, a category is perfectly sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDUP precludes that as a grounds for deletion. James500 (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why I said "in this instance"! Usually I agree that a list and a category can happily coexist, and have argued it at AfD many times, but in this instance I see no reason for an article that singles out a few people (a number of them redlinked). Most people "killed" by the police are simply not notable, even in Britain where relatively very few people are killed by the police. Notable people killed by the police (who are, most often, notable for being killed by the police, as most weren't at all notable before, which is even more of a reason not to have an article) are better off listed in a category, not an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that the inclusion of Category:Police misconduct in the United Kingdom shows a clear bias on this article, as it implies that all these deaths were due to misconduct. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That can be fixed by removing the category. James500 (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, but the very fact it's there in the first place illustrates perfectly the potential for POV abuse that such an article attracts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said at the beginning of this thread, these kinds of lists are politically inspired. I have always loved making lists since I was a kid, which long predates cyberspace, but once you enter the real world, you need to exercise good judgment. Quis separabit? 21:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that political motivation is an issue in relation to the topic (I haven't looked at the content yet). We also have lists of police officers killed in the course of performing their office. These provide "balance", if that is needed. Anyway the test for lists is LISTN, not "does the mere existence of this list potentially benefit some political cause", which could be used to delete all sorts of perfectly reasonable lists, and probably wouldn't be compatible with NOTCENSORED. At the AfD for the US list, sources were adduced which appeared to demonstrate the notability of the group as a group. James500 (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't think we should have lists of police officers killed on duty either, any more than we should have lists of soldiers killed in war. We should only have lists of those unlawfully killed, since that clearly is notable (especially in Britain, where cop killings are pretty rare). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments about exclusion of lawful homicide above. James500 (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the objections to the topic of this list, the list for the United States (and any others that might exist) should possibly have been included in this nomination, because you can't object to one topic without objecting to the other. If the US list is not subsequently included in this nomination, arguments against the topic of this list may have to be ignored, because notice of this AfD has not been added to articles and deletion sorting lists to which it is relevant, and because we don't want to have to take this to DRV if the US list gets kept in a subsequent AfD. James500 (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me because not everything can be listified adequately or appropriately. However, I would repeat your comment from above:

I think that it is inconceivable that homicides by police officers in any sizeable country will not satisfy LISTN. That is the consensus we have come to every time we have had this discussion, starting with nomination of the list for the United States a number of years ago. And as this is arguably a daughter list of the worldwide topic, it doesn't have to be independently notable either, because LISTN says that we can spin off daughter lists without regard to notability.

The United States is kind of a sui generis case, first because of its size and power, and second as a Western democracy which still retains capital punishment (albeit now in only a minority of its states) unlike other Western democracies. Why for instance was the category Naturalized citizens only CFDed in re Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States but not for any other country? Quis separabit? 18:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The United Kingdom is also a large and powerful country. It was formerly the most powerful country in the world, with the largest empire. It also retained capital punishment till 1964 in practice and till 1998 in theory. Since this list isn't confined to any particular period of history, I think an argument that the US is a special case may be incompatible with NTEMP. The category you mention doesn't prove a rule, and we are said to have a bias towards the US because of we have more editors from that country than any other. James500 (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the contents of the list, I find that many entries are not properly referenced. Could the BLP problems with the content be dealt with by simply removing all entries that are not properly referenced or which though referenced are not clearly within the scope of the list? If that is not sufficient, would revision deletion suffice? James500 (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not 100% clear what you mean. Quis separabit? 16:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors suggest above that this list be "blown up" and then recreated because the present content has BLP issues. I am asking if those issues could be fixed through normal editing or revision deletion. James500 (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A list of persons killed by the constabulary force in Ireland from 1823 to 1830: [20]. I suspect there will be other complete lists already compiled for different periods and for the rest of the UK. I mention this to dispel the notion that a list of this kind would necessarily be incomplete or dominated by recentism. I am under the impression that it ought in principle to be possible to assemble a complete list because there is always a coroner's inquest into an unnatural death. James500 (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC) That list was continued to 1846 by a second parliamentary paper: [21]. James500 (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several high-profile cases such as Ian Tomlinson, Mark Duggan and Jean Charles de Menezes. The list is therefore useful as a navigation index. There seems to be plenty of coverage of such cases out there and so WP:LISTN is satisfied. Andrew D. (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:POVFORK. The problem with the article is that despite the title, a significant part of it is devoted to documenting Royal Ulster Constabulary action in Northern Ireland, which is a very different emphasis from, say, Jean Charles de Menezes - the latter was a completely civillian case in a country that was not under internal conflict. I could support a series of categories, as those reading about de Menezes' case might also be interested in Death of Mark Duggan, but I don't think there's much in common with the pair of them compared to, say, Diarmuid O'Neill. As it is, I think this simply a case of a bunch of tenuously related cases looking for an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not applicable because that discourages recording deaths which are not notable while this list explicitly concentrates on notable cases
WP:POVFORK does not seem relevant because there's no indication of what the other fork is supposed to be and why we couldn't merge, rather than delete, per WP:ATD. Note that we have a similar category People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom and, per WP:CLN, that's a reason to keep rather than delete
It seems easy to find sources linking such cases as Diarmuid O'Neill and Jean Charles de Menezes, e.g. "There are several similarities with the shooting of De Menezes"
Note that official statistics are maintained about such cases

Andrew D. (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One possible way round that is to rewrite the article as prose, rather than a list. That way, the relationship between any events can be documented and sourced, which list really can't. It can also outline public reaction to police injustice. Through that, we could include Stephen Lawrence who wasn't killed by the police but generated a similar level of public outcry and police injustice. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave it to you guys to work it out. I am just glad to have started the ball rolling. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what Ritchie333 claims, NOTMEMORIAL is wholly irrelevant. It says that we do not create standalone articles for non-notable dead people. It does not say that we do not create lists of them. It says that "subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements". The subject of this article is a group of people who are collectively notable and therefore satisfy WP:LISTN. Whether they are individually notable is irrelevant because notability does not apply to content within an article (WP:NNC) Nor does a list of people killed by police officers memorialize anyone. A list like this, especially when complete, is valuable for the study of history and what might be called "police science" and so forth. Why do you think Parliament had a complete list of these killings (with details of inquests etc) compiled for Ireland over a 23 year period at least? Answer: To facilitate research.
POVFORK is also irrelevant because the list can simply be expanded with more entries for people killed at any time in Great Britain and before 1922 in Ireland. It ought to be complete. I should also point out that if it transpired that the RUC had killed more people than mainland police forces (I haven't checked the statistics), that would not be POV, it would be due weight. We do not delete an article because it is incomplete. That is prohibited by WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. James500 (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If people persist in objecting to the topic of this list, the corresponding list for the US, and for any other country (there might be one for Canada), will have to be included in this nomination, unless we are prepared to ignore those objections, because they are all part of a single list, and we don't do "salami tactics" at AfD. James500 (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already said above I am happy to see if the article can be improved and refocused by regular editing, but to make it clear I've struck my !vote while I work out what to do. In the meantime, it would be really helpful if people worked on the content rather than bludgeoning their point of view here, which doesn't (at least directly) improve article quality. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That essay is wrong in principle. Contrary to what that absurd essay claims, editors certainly do not have a right to impose an arbitrary "word limit" on others for the purpose of stifling (non-repetitious) discussion and suppressing (non-repetitious) ideas. If an erroneous or doubtful interpretation of policy is advanced, it is essential that the policy be once accurately explained by someone (and it does not matter who), to prevent people who haven't read the policy piling on, or closing the AfD, in ignorance of what the policy actually says. That essay also fails to understand that consensus is supposed to be determined by the strength of arguments, not the number of !voters, so, excepting unnecessary repetition of the same argument, it is irrelevant whether some people say more than others. What that essay proposes would actually make it impossible to determine consensus. I am going to fix that essay or write an alternative essay, because what that essay says is clearly nonsense. James500 (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems sensible and apposite to me.—S Marshall T/C 15:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Combination articles of this time are he way to handle the less-than-notable that still merit some coverage. DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form or other, per above. Pax 06:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:POLITICIAN makes no reference to local municipalities' size being a criterion, but instead requires that the article of a subject of this nature pass WP:GNG for inclusion. Wherein that has not been satisfied during this debate, this article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bauer (politician)

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

Per my comments in this AFD, as this article is pretty much the same deal. Unlike that article (nominated for deletion thirteen minutes after it was created), I can only conclude that this article has lasted as long as it has because deletionism was nowhere near as rampant then as it is now. Like Amy Demboski, Bauer's political career more or less amounts to serving on the Anchorage Assembly and being a candidate for Anchorage mayor in the current election, which numerous editors contend is no indication of notability (just as an aside, I don't know where MelanieN got her information from, but according to this, there are twelve candidates for mayor, not nine). This article also has issues with WP:BLP1E (Bauer received a blip of non-local media coverage once upon a time, which should be expected given that he latched onto the hot-button political issue of immigration) and WP:AUTOBIO, WP:COI and possibly WP:SOCK. See Pab55 (talk · contribs), see also Fforestak (talk · contribs), Truthseekerak (talk · contribs) and Wizelf (talk · contribs) and the edit warring and similar editing activity which occurred between those accounts, all with redlinks for user pages. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Another one-term member of the Anchorage city council, now running for mayor in a crowded field. (BTW I got my information from this reference, dated January 13; apparently a few more candidates have signed up since then.) There is no election article to redirect to, so this should be deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For information's sake, only partially relevant to this AFD: after clicking on the link provided by MelanieN above, the reference to "letter of intent" and the date of the story prompted me to dig a little further. Anchorage Municipal Code 28.30.030 (C) states "Time of filing. Declarations of candidacy shall be filed with the municipal clerk no earlier than 67 days and no later than 53 days before a regular election, and no earlier than 35 days and no later than 28 days before a special election." The "letter of intent" refers to filing conflict of interest/financial disclosure paperwork with the Alaska Public Offices Commission to be considered a candidate under state law. That is different from filing a declaration of candidacy with the municipal clerk, which falls under municipal law. These two shouldn't be confused, though I've noticed that the Wikipedia community does anyway rather frequently, often on account of taking a certain view of what is and isn't a candidate (in most cases, by accepting the media's definition without digging any further). In one case several years ago, a regular editor rather disingenuously blew off this difference as being no different than the difference between appearing on a primary election ballot and advancing to the general election. There are no primary elections for municipal offices in Alaska, as those offices are all nonpartisan. The 14-day filing window referenced above is typical for municipal elections, and in this case, closed this past Friday afternoon. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an elected member of the Anchorage City Council, this constitutes a pass of WP:POLITICIAN, in my estimation — Anchorage being the largest city in Alaska, with a population of 300,000+. Your mileage may vary. Carrite (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sligo Baroque Orchestra

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

Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG Murry1975 (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had never heard of this ensemble, so I checked album databases and discovered that they have not released any recordings. I also discovered that they are an amateur ensemble - their website states that they only rehearse one night per week (http://sligobaroqueorchestra.com/joinus/). I do not believe that they meet the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles". Syek88 (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Jesse Merz

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination, to help out a newbie. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From [22]: Self-promotional article created by the subject of the article. References often appear to be objective third party references, but upon close examination most are from the subject himself. #2, #4, #6, # #11, #12, #14, #15, #18, #19 and most of #20-#31 are internal college blogs. #11 & #12 are dead links. #8 is an expired website created by the subject. #9 & #10 refer to the same project which was canceled four years ago. #32 is an IMDb page that must have been created a decade ago; he lists intern positions in which he promoted movie trailers for an advertising company and lists them as if he worked on the films. He also interned at the Sundance Film Festival but lists it on IMDb as if it were a legit credit working on a major motion picture. If you remove all of these self-promotional links, there is virtually nothing left.

In addition, many of the subject's acting credits are misrepresented. His work at the Atlantic Theater Company was as a student. The majority of the film acting credits are for student film projects or as an extra. Based on this logic, every film or acting student in the world should have a Wikipedia page.

This article has already been deemed of "low importance." I would go a step further; most of the credits are misrepresented. It has been nominated for deletion twice before. Both times there was no consensus but deletion was heavily favored. And both times the reason deletion was avoided was mostly because reviewers didn't read the details of the subject's references. The links are overwhelmingly self-promotional.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefariconga (talk • contribs)

See also in Talk:Jesse Merz by Stefariconga . Staszek Lem (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete, per nom, and my nomination and comments at the original AfD. Fails WP:BIO and more specifically WP:ARTIST, WP:PROF, and WP:NACTOR. Valfontis (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Valfontis (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Valfontis (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Valfontis (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Valfontis (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is clearly a college or high school acting instructor. So are tens of thousands of other people. He isn't noteworthy. I have also done additional research since my previous concerns. Most of his theater credits are for the Columbia Gorge Rep. Theater; a children's summer camp he co-owns with his mother. This strikes me as blatant self-promotion and is misleading at best. This means the majority of his credits include student films he shot while a student at NYU, children's theater productions performed at his family farm and college theater he directed as a college instructor. None of that is noteworthy. Even worse, he misrepresents internships on his IMDb page and then reposts that information here. Its difficult to determine if anything on his self-promotional page is real, let alone note-worthy.Stefariconga (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No legitimate claim of notability, i.e. this is not an encyclopedic subject. Agricola44 (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

~~Delete~~. No legitimate claim of notability. Many claims are fraudulent or inflated. Even legit-looking links often lead to self-promotional sources in disguise. Stefariconga (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stefariconga, you don't have to !vote again after a relisting. All the !votes above the relisting template will be taken into account by the closing admin. Also, since this is not a vote, but a discussion based on consensus, that's why I say "!vote". Just let the process run its course, I think it's pretty clear you want the article deleted. :) Valfontis (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clear consensus on this article's notability, or whether it is synthesized information. Both sides present strong arguments, but at the end of the day I don't feel that the community has a chance of currently determining which outweighs the other. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Violence against men

AfDs for this article:

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

This page has been deleted twice already and renamed once, so I think it's worth discussing whether or not we want to keep this latest incarnation. My personal opinion is that the article is merely synthesis of various statistics, and does not reflect a coherent topic of coverage sufficiently distinct from violence. In theory, you could create any number of articles of the type "Violence against X", for example, Violence against 20–30 year olds, but in most cases, the scope is not going to be sufficiently distinct from violence. The reason we have a Violence against women article is because there is a large body of theory and research devoted to this as a distinct phenomenon. Same with Child abuse. In other words, there are many reliable sources devoted exclusively to those subjects and the subjects are distinct encyclopedic topics. As the vast majority of violence is perpetrated by and against men, there is no need for a separate article devoted to that (just as there is no need for articles devoted to Violence against adults or Violence during war). Kaldari (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The article that was previously redirected is here [23]. That article was mostly about domestic violence and it was redirected to Domestic violence against men. We have articles like Violence against women in Guatemala and Domestic violence in Peru with many more for each individual country. But not for Men? Really? The article that was redirected was not the same article. Please look at content. The article is sourced with research articles published in peer reviewed journals, so this is clearly a topic of interest for research scientists.USchick (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Before this article was recreated, it was discussed at Talk:Domestic violence against men/Archive 1#Violence against men. A WP:Permalink for that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Educational and encyclopedic. Good introduction to sub articles referenced in links in the article. Nice use of structure and organization to frame key topic points. Could use expansion with additional secondary sources, particularly with an emphasis on scholarly and academic source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that consists entirely of synthesis cannot be encyclopedic in Wikipedia's sense of the word. It might be informative for you, but the sources do not discuss violence against men as defined in the article ("violence that is aimed at men and caused at least in part by their being men"). They discuss male rape, war violence, etc. without saying that men hurt other men because the victims are men. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That definition wasn't included in the article when Cirt !voted. The original definition in the lead section was violence directed primarily or exclusively at male persons, which is essentially the same definition that appears in Violence against women. Someone re-worded the definition. It might conceivably be changed again before the end of this AfD, and it is entirely permissable to !vote on the basis that it should be. James500 (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given by Kaldari, & for the same reasons given in the first two deletion debates. Just because an article is encyclopedic & has lots of citations doesn't make it notable (plus, the last section in the article has nothing to do with violence against men). I'm not quite sure why the third debate had so many more comments than the first two — reeks a bit of canvassing to me. Domestic violence against men already exists, no need to have this second page — and the fact that the talk page on that article has become a forum for weird misogyny makes me quite suspicious of the motives behind creating this one. Not sure why we need to have this same conversation repeatedly. CircleAdrian (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cite the "weird misogyny" you're referring to? I'm not seeing it on that talk page, and most of the discussion appears to be many years old anyway. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cirt. NRVE says that a topic should not be deleted on grounds of notability if it is likely that adequate coverage exists. I am under the impression that there is so much literature on violence that the no one could read all of it. In view of volume of literature on violence, the breadth of the sub topic, and the fact that the distinction between men and women is an obvious one, I infer that it is likely further coverage exists. The expression "violence against men" itself seems to appear in quite a lot of sources in GBooks, GScholar and so forth. In any event, I am inclined to view the topic as inherently notable. I don't think that the analogy with an article on violence against persons aged 20 to 30 is valid, because dividing a topic into men and women, or into adults and children, is obvious, whereas the age range suggested appears arbitrary, there being, as far as I am aware, not much difference, in terms of biology or social position, between persons aged 29 and 31. I am not convinced by the "vast majority" argument either. I am not convinced, for example, that a vast majority of 78% of homicide victims is vast enough (I don't know if this figure is applicable to other forms of violence). If that number was 99%, I might think differently. In any event, I can think of sub topics that are clearly distinct from their parent topics despite forming the vast majority of their parent topics, such as the distinction between civil and criminal law. Without prejudice to the questions of notability and forking, I think this is a plausible redirect to Violence, of which it is a sub-topic. Since neither original synthesis, nor non-notability, nor unnecessary forking are, as far as I am aware, grounds for revision deletion, they are not grounds for the deletion of a plausible redirect either, so the page is not eligible for deletion on those grounds (WP:R). I think I should also point out that the correct procedure for original research is to transwiki it to Wikiversity using the import process, followed, where appropriate, by deletion under CSD A5, rather than sending it to AfD. I think that Violence against adults, mentioned in the nomination, should be redirected to Violence (without prejudice to future expansion). I don't think it is an obviously implausible topic, as there is, for example, an offence of allowing or causing the death of a vulnerable adult in England. Even the topic of violence during war isn't obviously out of the question since I am under the impression that it is quite possible to have a war without violence. In fact, at one point, it was extremely common for armies, instead of fighting each other, to engage in manouveres that I think have been described as a form of "shadow boxing" designed to bankrupt the other sides treasury. I also take the view that topics should normally be redirected to their parent topic rather than a sub-topic. A redirect to an article on domestic violence seems to imply that is the only or primary form of violence against men. James500 (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I try to base my decisions on what minimizes harm to the encyclopedia, while maximizing benefit. In this instance, I see very little, if any, harm in letting this article remain. On the other hand, removal of the "Violence Against Men" while retaining "Violence Against Women" could be percieved (rightly or wrongly) as discriminatory and agenda-driven to an outside observer. It is not enough to act with integrity and without bias... one must also APPEAR to act with integrity. Particularly with a project which depends on outside voluntary funding, appearances matter, and there is alredy plenty of fodder for the "Wikipedia is biased" crowd, in the media and elsewhere, without dishing more up to them on a silver platter... that this AfD was initiated by the creator of Wikiproject Feminism would be icing on the cake we'd be serving up to some critics of the encyclopedia. In sum, the potential downsides in this instance (potential damage to the reputation of the encylopedia), outweigh the minmial upsides and benefit of removing a perhaps borderline article. Marteau (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain how the Feminism Wikiproject is relevent to this? Because I can't follow your argument at all. Haminoon (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed my statement, believe it was perfectly clear, and that it conveyed what I wanted to convey. I am sorry you are having an issue with it. Marteau (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think what's obvious here is that in order to remain a standalone article, Violence against men needs to have a body of information that is both distinct from the Domestic article, and the violence in general article, and WP:N on its own. I don't think that's currently met. Simply put, and anecdotally, I don't think there's enough independent incidents of violence against men /because/ they are men. At least not yet, or not recorded with data and news coverage. Maybe that's because of the way gender differences exist in our society, and such violence DOES occur. But Wikipedia articles need sources, and they need independent notability, I don't think that's met here. It doesn't have enough standalone info to be worthy of its own page. I would be in support of a subsection of Domestic Violence against men, though I know that seems strange/badly categorized. It's the best solution I can come up with. --Shibbolethink (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced either article has to be confined to violence done to men or women because they are respectively male or female. The UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women defines violence against women as including both violence that affects women because they are women and violence that affects women disproportionately (emphasis added). So, by that logic, presumably violence against men includes violence that affects men disproportionately, whether or not it is done because they are men. Moreover, I am not convinced that either article should not respectively include all violence that affects persons of the respective gender, since that is the respective literal meaning of both expressions. James500 (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To delete the Violence against men article while maintaining the Violence against women article would be fundamentally sexist, and such an action has no place in the Wikipedia project. Misandry and misogyny are two sides of the same coin. 70.109.187.181 (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC) — 70.109.187.181 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep- In my opinion, the sources in the article demonstrate that violence against men, because of their gender, is a thing that is studied in acedemic literature. The very well sourced section on wartime sexual abuse of men make this article more than just a "domestic violence against men" fork. The article would be improved if it omitted the last section, which is off-topic, and included more material on civilian men being murdered during war time, but I see the article's only a few days old and clearly has a lot of potential to improve. Reyk _YO! 19:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And I found a potentially useful describing both mandatory conscription and sex-selective murder of civilians as violence against men: [24]. Reyk _YO! 14:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this supposed to be a joke, the assertion that violence against men is not sufficiently distinct from violence in general? Jay Vogler (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2015
Keep UNLESS you are planning on deleting the violence against women page as well. The only reason to delete this page would be pure bigotry.

(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calum Henderson (talk • contribs) — Calum Henderson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

'"Keep'" extreme feminism will end .... it will take the form of implosion as all neo nazi movements do ... there is no such thing as domestic violence as domestic is an adjective. ... adjectives cannot be laws ... there is either violence or no violence present ... the term domestic is political and used by politicians to get elected and also used by corporate conglomerates to advertise to women who account for spending over 70% disposable household income ...if Wikipedia is complicit in this then it must expect the same outcome as the extremists it would be supporting ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeescouser (talk • contribs) 21:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC) — Yankeescouser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Umm, you're really losing me with that train of thought. The question here isn't what you think about feminism, the question is whether this topic is encyclopedic and notable under GNG. Carrite (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Coming from the same editor who closed the discussion on the previous AfD for this article, and who coincidentally is also the creator of Wikiproject Feminism, this smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. If the genders were reversed, would any of this discussion be happening? Seems to me like it would be a snowball keep with people reporting the filer to ANI. Which I wouldn't agree with either way, but. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many of those advocating for deletion here seem to be claiming that the article is WP:SYNTH. Exactly what conclusions are stated in the article that are not directly supported by the citations? Also, this page serves a vital organizational role, as it's the main page for a significant Category:Violence_against_men. The number of articles in that category, alone, along with the variety of subject matter, ought to establish the notability of the subject. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Haminoon: It is hypocritical on your part to complain about the personal attacks of others, while liberally applying SPA tags. The only real purpose of such tagging is to discredit the opinions of others. Per WP:SPATG, my edits "within a broad topic" do not make me an SPA; and anyway as I am editing from an IP and do not have a Wikipedia account I am clearly not an SPA, or indeed any A at all. As for your edit summary, I see nothing in the policy which requires making mainspace edits to avoid the charge, anyway. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/violenceagainstwomen has been created by User:Calum Henderson, who has also put an AFD notice at the top of the article Violence against women. This strikes me as a more than a bit WP:POINTy, but I'm bringing it to folks' attention because it doesn't seem to be showing up on the AFD log for today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 27). EastTN (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - It looks like someone has posted this to an MRA board, which I guess was inevitable. Most of the previous 8 comments appear to be from anons or SPAs and should probably either be removed or ignored. Kaldari (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the above an ad-hominem attack? 208.53.116.168 (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't pick and choose which comments to ignore based on your own personal bias. We're all users of Wikipedia and all have an equal say, regardless of our backgrounds. None of these comments should be removed or ignored. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, is it really your argument here that, when considering the status of an article about hardships experienced by men, the opinions of activists who specifically advocate for the rights of men should be ignored, because of their advocacy? But feminist points of view should not be subject to the same treatment? I am not an MRA and have no idea what "board" you have in mind, but I don't understand why anyone would call for those views to be summarily dismissed. If you suspect WP:CANVASsing, that's another matter, but one that could do with some evidence.

Per the template header on the edit form: All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements. It is explicitly not policy to "remove or ignore" comments here, although the closer should indeed be aware that this is not a vote. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Kaldari - I'm an infrequent chemistry editor who recently decided it was worth an account, not a men's-rights (or anyone's-rights) editor. I've responded to this proposal in the same way as I would respond to someone attempting to delete the Violence against women article because it's no different from violence in general. This is a joke. Jay Vogler (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we assume that to be true, I fail to see why comments by some editors should be deemed worthless just because they subscribe to a movement opposing your ideology. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. --386-DX (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this has also been posted on 8chan's Gamergate board. This just went from bad to worse. --Bikemaster9 (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And looking at the post timers, it's quite likely that it was posted over there by you. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, feel free to shoot the messenger... I just thought everyone should be aware that this is being WP:Canvassed by misogynists with an exe to grind. --Bikemaster9 (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an archived snapshot of the thread (disable Javascript, web.archive.org is getting stupid these days; alternatively view archive(dot)today/HXrY8). Just like Wikipedia, this site runs on UTC, and this thread was created at 03/01/15 (Sun) 04:09:37 by someone with an ID (which is actually an IP address hash) of 0be51b. Throughout the thread, 0be51b only makes five posts, and at sporadic time intervals.

Are you telling me that you "accidentally stumbled" across such a post on a niche website which struggles to rank on Alexa, less than one hour after the thread was created, and then spent the time to create an SPA account at 04:58 1 March 2015, to report on the travesty at 05:10 1 March 2015? Keep in mind that as of present (March 2, 1:00PM UTC+11), Googlebot has yet to trawl the page (the site's robots.txt does allow search engine trawling) which means that the page does not show up in a google search. In addition, at 245 posts per hour, we're talking about a pretty fast board here, which raises doubts on an "accidental" discovery. In other words, you yourself would have been a patron of the site prior to "finding" the thread.

Furthermore, do a CTRL+F for the ID "0be51b", and notice how exactly 6 minutes after your post here on Wikipedia, the thread creator makes a WP:BATTLEGROUND-baiting post in reference to it (despite being largely inactive for the prior hour)? In addition, when your shenanigans are called out by another user, the thread creator writes at 06:35:33, quote, "FUCK YOU MRA!" (post No.420205).

You created that thread, with the intention of affecting the outcome of this AfD discussion. By pointing out the thread (keep in mind that few people in the thread are even agreeing with the thread poster, and have even been encouraging others NOT to participate), it seems like an attempt by you to convince participants of this discussion that there is a state of emergency. In other words, this was a false flag operation from the very beginning. --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Citing "a large body of theory and research devoted to this as a distinct phenomenon." doesn't mean that any other subject should be dismissed. Further "As the vast majority of violence is perpetrated by and against men," would seem to be an argument for keeping it rather than dismissing it as irrelevant. Obviously, if it's the most likely form of violence, it makes sense to keep and expand on the article. Moreover, as opposed to Violence Against Women, the lack of theory and research devoted to the most prevalent form of violence appears to be a gross oversight. I'm sure there are plenty of resources to pull from, in reality. The notion that violence against women is a "phenomenon" indicates that it isn't a very specific type of violence and that violence against men is not, as if violence towards women was unnatural but violence towards men is natural. I have to disagree with this mischaracterization and agree with the other proponents that this would be a form of discrimination and will appear incredibly biased. Yhufir (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)— Yhufir (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - The fact that a topic is encyclopedic and has lots of references does indeed mean that it is notable in WP terms, per GNG. I suggest that Domestic violence against women/Violence against women and Domestic violence against men/Violence against men be brought into some sort of structural symmetry. But as for deletion, the only possible grounds here is that the topic is a fork and I feel that it is not — domestic violence being a subset of violence, which also includes such things as castration and prison rape. Carrite (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since it is clear to me by the WP:Single purpose accounts weighing in on this discussion that editors (very likely men's rights editors, who, if they are IPs, also very likely have registered Wikipedia accounts) have been WP:Canvassed to this discussion, I have alerted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force to this debate. I am also tempted to alert WP:Feminism, but enough WP:Feminism editors watch the WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force talk page. Besides, someone else might alert WP:Feminism anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: An IP alerted WP:Feminism. Given the obvious inappropriate WP:Canvassing that has gone on regarding this deletion debate (despite my hope that this deletion debate would close quietly without such disruption), it is tainted, and editors might want to alert Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation of this matter, which I might very well do, if no one beats me to it first. I have also alerted WP:Med of this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 07:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are worried about WP:CANVASsing here and consider it a bad thing, why is your response to "alert" two other WikiProjects about it? (And why do you imagine that the Gamergate discretionary sanctions are relevant?) 76.64.13.4 (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is fruitless arguing with me about this, unless you take me to be stupid. Any experienced Wikipedia editor who can recognize inappropriate WP:Canvassing knows that inappropriate WP:Canvassing has gone on in this case. For example, the inappropriate WP:Canvassing noted in this discussion, where men's rights editors tried to get me sanctioned. And in cases like these, it is common sense to notify the relevant WikiProjects or pages (or specific editors like Sonicyouth86 and Binksternet) that can, or will try to, do something about it. You know, balance things out. Much like SarekOfVulcan helped to balance things out when he closed this silly retaliation WP:AfD. And anyone who knows anything about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions knows what it has to do with men's rights topics, especially when editors involved with the Gamergate controversy article are voting "Keep" in this discussion. So, yes, at WP:Med, I noted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions. Do find an editor who is not stupid if you want to debate. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and editors should not overlook this WP:Canvassing admission. Flyer22 (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the least bit productive. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Single Purpose Accounts here are obvious, and any good closer would notice that and weigh what they have to say appropriately. You did more than "alert" the Gender Gap Task Force to it, you invited them here to "weigh in". That was more than "balance things out" as you phrase it. Presumably, your action will result in established editors taking you up on your invitation. Inviting participation is fine, but when the invitation is selective, as yours was, it becomes canvassing which is what you have engaged in. Two wrongs do not "balance" anything out, and combatting canvassing by canvassing is completely inappropriate and a violation of the guidelines. Combat canvassing by exposing it, not by engaging in it. Marteau (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The inappropriate WP:Canvassing goes deeper in this case, since it's not just a matter of obvious WP:Single purpose accounts weighing in. And there was nothing inappropriate about my WP:Canvassing; I notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, which is watched by feminists, men's rights editors, pro and anti-Gamergate editors (among other types of editors), and I notified WP:Med. Completely appropriate WP:Canvassing, as is clear by the WP:Canvassing guideline; it's a common misconception that all WP:Canvassing is disallowed. Stating "Surely, everyone (or almost everyone) here will be interested in weighing in on this fourth Violence against men deletion discussion.", as I did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, is not inappropriate WP:Canvassing. Neither is noting WP:Canvassing, as I did at WP:Med. Save your lessons on Wikipedia ways for someone who does not understand them. Flyer22 (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate the snark, and I do not intend to "debate" you, but to call your behaviour into question. I don't understand why you apparently think your canvassing is appropriate, but that of others is not. I also don't understand how you figure that men's rights editors tried to get [you] sanctioned - I see a single editor complaining about harassment on your part, and then someone else jumping in with a link to off-site discussion of the incident report. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but it's common for Redditors to observe Wikipedia drama from a distance; and if anyone expresses displeasure at how things are going, there is no real reason to believe there is any deliberate canvassing going on - it's just people speaking their minds. Reddit is, after all, fundamentally a discussion forum.

As for Gamergate, no, I do not know "what it has to do with men's rights topics" because it does not have anything to do with men's rights topics. Trying to Google for any evidence of Gamergate being a men's rights topic does not uncover MRAs claiming that it is. It does, however, uncover pundits trying to compare the representation of MRAs in popular media to that of gamers, as well as feminists trying to associate Gamergate with the MRM on very specious evidence. It is unsurprising that there would be some overlap in these audiences, due to feminist-critical (or even outright anti-feminist) sentiment; but the MRM is not simply anti-feminism. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what you appreciate. And except for the fact that Redditors watch Wikipedia and that there is overlap between Redditors and men's rights editors, your rebuttal is silliness. For example, my WP:Canvassing is appropriate for reasons outlined at the WP:Canvassing guideline. It outlines what is appropriate and inappropriate WP:Canvassing. Mine does not at all fall within the inappropriate WP:Canvassing context. Like I stated, "Do find an editor who is not stupid if you want to debate." Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to change up your editing style when editing as an IP; non-changes easily give away which registered Wikipedia editors IPs are. Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit pointing to a WP:Canvassing thread, which further shows how some Gamergate editors are concerned with men's rights topics, and vice versa, one of them states, "WP:CANVAS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and a big WP:BOOMERANG if they find this thread. They can claim that everyone disagreeing with them is a Gamergater from 8chan and use that as an excuse to ban them like they did with Toku. If you're going to go to war in a controversial section, don't start by giving the other side a plate of ammo." LOL!! Anyone with decent Google skills can find the other WP:Canvassed threads as well. Someone should go ahead and close this joke of a WP:AfD, and only because of the mass tainting. As usual, men's rights editors and some pro-Gamergaters (hmm, "Gamergaters"?) cannot win arguments without mass WP:Canvassing, and are obvious as the sky with their WP:Canvassing. But then again, I suppose they have to WP:Canvass because of how supposedly gynocentric Wikipedia is. Flyer22 (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously going to use an obvious false flag by whoever made that thread post in an attempt to silence and ignore users like me and many others who are here, within this discussion, from genuine reasons? For the record, I arrived here following your post at WP:MED, which I have on my watchlist. Many long-term Wikipedians here likely arrived from similar noticeboards (e.g. AfD noticeboard, WP countering systemic bias), and probably don't appreciate what you're writing right now. We don't close a thread because it's tainted by SPAs, we simply ignore the SPAs and weigh the discussion based on arguments rather than numbers, like how it's always been. Just so you know, anyone can make an anonymous post on the internet, and unless you have access to the IP logs, you can't determine that simply who is writing what. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boo! I stand by my "06:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)" post because, among other things, it addresses the obvious inappropriate WP:Canvassing, whether we consider that so-called bait thread or not. Now...I'm going to go back to eating my popcorn while I watch this mess unfold. Flyer22 (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to backpedal away from an obviously outrageous proposal to close the discussion, at least retract it. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, look at the "many long-term Wikipedians[']" edit histories; the vast majority of Wikipedians in this deletion debate are... Well, let's just state you are incorrect to believe that most of editors in this deletion debate landed here via appropriate means. Flyer22 (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're being unconstructive here. Why not use a simple mechanism to determine who should and shouldn't be here? If they have <50 edits OR made their account within the past 72 hours, their opinion is given less weight, and if they don't meet this criteria, it's business as usual? Why are you so intent on being deceptive about who's participating in this discussion? It's a very cheap ploy, and it's an unconstuctive attitude to have on a collaborative encyclopedia project. Turn on WP:POPUPS, and notice that there are plenty of genuine Wikipedians here. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your defense of this mess is unconstructive. And that you cannot recognize barely-there editors, including WP:Dormant accounts suddenly popping up for this deletion debate, is something I chalk up to your inexperience with these matters. And minutes ago, I just noticed your "backpedal away" post; I'm not backpedaling away from anything; stating "I stand by my '06:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)' post" is the exact opposite of backpedaling. If you want to defend the poor rationales to keep the Violence against men article, and the obvious barely-there editors, it would be better for you to find a different editor to preach to. Flyer22 (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're too lazy to back up your claims with proof, let me do it for you.

Keep (Long-term Wikipedians): Cirt (autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker, 181291 edits); James500 (autoreviewer, reviewer, 26581 edits); Marteau (reviewer, rollbacker, 3368 edits since: 2003-03-23); Reyk (autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 17294 edits since: 2005-09-05); Carrite (autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 55012 edits); Topbanana (sysop, 68032 edits); Benlisquare (autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker, 41604 edits); BabbaQ (34633 edits); Ruby2010 (autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker, 31629 edits); Doc James (eponline, sysop, captcha-exempt, 123220 edits); George100 (10740 edits since: 2006-03-05)

Keep (Likely canvassed): Westside12345 (8 edits); 70.109.187.181; Jay Vogler (18 edits since: 2014-12-17); Calum Henderson (16 edits); Yankeescouser (3 edits); 76.64.13.4; Yhufir (4 edits); TheWaters (8 edits); Grillmaster423 (91 edits); Andelocks (13 edits); 208.54.38.224; Deep Purple Dreams (240 edits); Akesgeroth (80 edits); 88.107.70.141; 31.51.3.181; 58.7.81.106; 216.73.201.25

Keep (Borderline, needs further analysis): MeanMotherJr (1308 edits since: 2011-12-29); 386-DX (924 edits since: 2006-12-13); Mr.Random (1045 edits since: 2006-01-04); Yurivict (2290 edits since: 2004-12-11)

Delete (Everybody): CircleAdrian (700 edits); Shibbolethink (191 edits since: 2014-08-18); EvergreenFir (reviewer, rollbacker, 25759 edits); Alexbrn (17645 edits); Johnuniq (reviewer, rollbacker, templateeditor, 32204 edits); Fyddlestix (1285 edits); The Four Deuces (reviewer, rollbacker, 30452 edits); 67.78.248.206

Are you going to continue to feign ignorance and extend the drama? You are literally putting your emotional reaction above your logical decision making. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(The above comment has been inappropriately refactored by User:Seth Forsman PhD at 16:45, 1 March 2015‎. Refer to the revision history for a permalink to the original comment. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

You still show your inexperience on this matter. I looked at each one of the WP:Single purpose accounts' and barely-there editors' edit histories before your inaccurate "09:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)" post above. I essentially stated that the vast majority of Wikipedians in this deletion debate are inappropriately WP:Canvassed; they are inappropriately WP:Canvassed. And by "Wikipedians," I mean the IPs in addition to the WP:Single purpose accounts and other barely-there editors. You should become more familiar with what WP:Single purpose accounts and WP:Dormant accounts are and how they operate. You can learn from the WP:Dormant accounts I pointed to in my "16:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)" post above. The number of years an editor has been registered with Wikipedia and/or that Wikipedian's edit count can mean nothing in such cases. For example, we have editors who have been registered with Wikipedia for years, but are essentially WP:Newbies because of their sporadic editing that has been spread between years, as in this case. Look at some of these accounts that have similar edit histories. I am not feigning ignorance; I am speaking from knowledge/experience. You are either feigning ignorance or simply don't know what you are talking about. You are also extending drama by trying to school me, when you are the one who needs to be schooled on matters such as these. And if I'm putting my "emotional reaction above [...] logical decision making," so are you. But then again, I am going on logic because I am noting the massive WP:Canvassing that has gone in this deletion debate, and that this deletion debate is a joke because of the rationales given for keeping the Violence against men article and because of the massive WP:Canvassing. Again, "If you want to defend the poor rationales to keep the Violence against men article, and the obvious barely-there editors, it would be better for you to find a different editor to preach to." You are wasting your time debating with me. Flyer22 (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bunch of canvassed users. So what? Ignore them, and only pay attention to the arguments of those who are long-term regulars here, and I assure you, there are still plenty of them around here. Earlier on, you claimed that very few people here were genuine editors and the majority were SPAs/dormant accounts, a claim which was complete nonsense. "You are wasting your time debating with me" - in other words, "lalala, I can't hear you"? I've made my points perfectly clear. It is dishonest to state that a discussion should be closed because SPAs have taken part, because it is unfair on those editors who are here with honest intentions. I assure you, the closing admin is not stupid, and he won't fall for a bunch of nobodies who have barely any presence on Wikipedia, so you really have no reason to become overly concerned over this like you currently are. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"your inaccurate ... post above" Explain how it's inaccurate, pray tell. The figures are precisely accurate, up to that exact point in time, and taken directly from the site itself. I based my judgement on who is and isn't an SPA based on how much total edits they had, and what kind of user privileges they have. You have claimed that I am wrong, yet you do not elaborate on how you come to that conclusion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You stated, "There are a bunch of canvassed users. So what?" Well, that's one reason why I can't take you seriously. You stated, "Earlier on, [I] claimed that very few people here were genuine editors." No, I stated that the vast majority of Wikipedians in this deletion debate are inappropriately WP:Canvassed. That is different wording. But, regardless... That the vast majority of Wikipedians in this deletion debate are inappropriately WP:Canvassed does indeed make it so that the significant majority of editors in this deletion debate are not genuine editors. You still don't know what you are talking about. My interaction with you is not a matter of "lalala, I can't hear you." It's a matter of "lalala, I know more than you. Move on now." And do stop with your "overly concerned" mess. Either way, I now know to avoid you in the future. Flyer22 (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narcissism has no place on a collaborative project. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now you have added on to your post in a way that completely misses the point of my "09:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)" post. Sigh. Flyer22 (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than brushing me off with a snarky attitude, again, I'd like you to explain how Cirt, James500, Marteau, Reyk, Carrite, Topbanana, myself, BabbaQ, Ruby2010, Doc James and George100 should not have their opinions taken into account. This time without the "I'm better than you, by the way here's a bunch of WP links that you've probably already read" wall of text. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with some of those editors, and I respect their opinions (the ones I'm familiar with and know to be good editors); Cirt and Doc James know that I respect theirs. But the keep votes in this deletion debate hold no weight...for reasons others have made clear in this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let the closing admin decide then. That's fair, right? If these editors have great arguments, then great. If these editors have poor arguments, then great. There is no reason to prematurely close the discussion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again. If narcissism has no place on Wikipedia, calling someone a narcissist surely does not. But, from what I've seen of your behavior here, at WP:Med, and occasionally elsewhere, you are no one good to collaborate with. Flyer22 (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well aren't you the pot calling the kettle black. Not only can't you accept that someone disagrees with you, you need to resort to taking others out of context in order to debate them. For instance, "There are a bunch of canvassed users. So what?" was not the end of my point, yet you cherrypicked those exact sentences to make it as if I'm carefree towards editors disrupting Wikiipedia en-masse. You refuse to get the point, and choose to selectively read what other people write. At least the closing admin now has plenty reason to think twice about anything he reads, thanks for your help. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I call the kettle black sometimes. Not in this case. The rest of your summary of me is so absurd, and applies your behaviors to me (for example, inaccurately presenting what someone stated), that it doesn't deserve a response. And, yes, your rambling, drawing even more attention to the WP:Canvassing has, in my opinion, worked out well. Flyer22 (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably be a bit more forgiving in my responses to you if you weren't so condescending. It is unfortunate that the atmosphere has soured to this state, I guess neither of us are willing to compromise on our points. At this point in time, the best decision would be to leave it to the rest of the community. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Benlisquare - I have removed my name from your list twice now. I do not give you permission to slander my name, and will revert any attempt to re-add it to your list. Further attempts to add it to that list will result in administrator action. If you wish to discuss this matter, you can use my talk page. Thank you. This issue has been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While appreciating the attempt to quantify things, this is fairly crap evidence either way since I'm listed as "obviously canvassed" but wasn't. This bizarre assumption that only people with thousands of edits care about Wikipedia content is the reason it took me so long to create an account in the first place. Jay Vogler (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been canvassed and am offended by the suggestion. I found this discussion on my own. Please do not cast aspersions. I am also offended by the implication of "not being a real Wikipedian". This nonsense is the kind of thing that ensures my continued refusal to get an account. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who's been hinted at potentially being canvassed, when given the chance, will deny the allegation. You cannot deny that most people would do this, and if I were also someone with a 2 month old account and 17 edits, I would do the same. The issue is, how can you demonstrate to everyone that you weren't? It's very difficult to, and given the dire circumstances of this discussion, leniency works to a disadvantage. Why are people all of a sudden coming over here to weigh in, if they aren't being canvassed? You might take offense, but it does appear extremely suspicious when an editor with 20 edits from 2007 suddenly shows up. --benlisquare_T•C•E 01:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that logic is that the burden of proof rests on the accuser to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocence. Suspicion is not proof. If it was, courts wouldn't exist. That's why those speaking out against your list have been doing so. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I guess you should convince Flyer22 that you're all here on genuine terms, since she's the one who believes that the majority of you are WP:Dormant accounts brought here by request. I don't have as much of a huge gripe, and the purpose of that rough list was to make a point to Flyer22, not to specifically segregate users into definite categories. Her argument is that because you people are present, the discussion should be closed. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~the testosterone-doped crocodile tears over the "unfairness" of this AfD are killing me. ridiculous and so sad, all at the same time. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)~~ (strike stupidity Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Here's your desired response. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i am an idiot. for real. apologies to all. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mostly SYNTH and OR. Violence_against_men#Violent_crime, Violence_against_men#Self-directed_violence, and Violence_against_men#Sexual_violence are entirely OR/SYNTH. Violence_against_men#Are_men_inherently_violent.3F is COATRACK and actually about male violence, not violence against men. There's nothing worth keeping if those are removed, so NUKEANDPAVE. I will add discussion about Violence against women is WP:OTHERSTUFF, and ignores the fact that that topic is internationally notable (e.g., Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women). The encyclopedia is not about parity, it's about reflecting notability and reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N has never required that topics be international, so that isn't really an argument against this article. We normally accept national topics, and often sub-national ones. OTHERSTUFF is an essay, and it admits that such arguments may not always be devoid of merit. That essay is primarily concerned with arguments that an article should not be deleted because similar articles, which may also be invalid, have not yet been deleted; the essay might not be applicable where the similar article is admitted to be valid. James500 (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability still not established and entire article is still SYNTH. NUKEANDPAVE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article has changed so much, I'm reaffirming my delete suggestion. The main issue now is the topic/scope. The article needs to be about violence against men because they are men, not violence against people who happen to be men. Compare to violence against women where it says, this type of violence targets a specific group with the victim's gender as a primary motive. So far that primary motive have not been established in general and on the few instances where it is, that material is best kept in their respective articles. There is no academic or political acknowledgement of violence against men as a social problem or much of anything that talks about men as targets of crimes because they are men (again, compare to violence against women and the international recognition of the problem). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing this article to a similar article is OR. This article is not a comparison to violence against women. USchick (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The argument that violence against men is not different enough from violence as a whole is strange, as it is arguing that some violence is more noteworthy than others. This may be true from a societal viewpoint, but not from an academic viewpoint. The objective and equal distinction is that violence is an umbrella that covers many topics, including articles such as: violence against specific groups, the societal/evolutionary advantages and disadvantages of violence, the causes of violence, and other narrower topics. Just because a narrow field is not heavily researched does not mean that it should be deleted or assumed under it's overarching topic. To me, that means the article should be left up so it can be edited and changed as more information becomes available. TheWaters (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC) — TheWaters (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The larger issue here has less to do with the article, but rather who initiated the "deletion". Not to discount the vast amount of Wiki-related projects Kaldari has contributed to, but it would appear that Kaldari - OFFICIALLY RETIRED - credits themselves with creating a Feminism WikiProject. There is a clearly a conflict of interest. It would be like the creator of National Association of Police Organizations calling for the deletion of Police brutality. Hogwash.

Has "Violence against men" been researched extensively as the converse? Of course not.

But calling for the deletion of a subject with which the usurper may or may not have personal issues with is both callous and a form of censorship. In principal, such philosophy flies against Wikipedia's expressed purpose.Grillmaster423 (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Please discuss the merits of the article, and don't attack the nominator. Same goes for all of you who are accusing the nominator of bias or bigotry. Reyk_YO! 07:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree that this subject should be discussed on its own merit and not the people discussing it, however, that's a two-way street. Both sides need to refrain from attacking those discussing here. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not in any way a conflict of interest. Haminoon (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "The motives for violence against women are similar to the motives for violence against men: to gain control or retribution and to promote or defend self-image. The motives play a role in almost all violence, regardless of gender." ^[1] I believe this article could be improved to better dictate the key points specific to violence against men that aren't domestic violence specific, but delete it all together would silence important dialogue pertaining to an issue that is becoming more and more relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andelocks (talk • contribs) 07:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC) — Andelocks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Synthetic (possibly tendentious) topic that lacks on-point sourcing and so fails WP:GNG. This leads to the embarrassment of an article we currently have containing the tortuous illiterate & illogical, e.g.: "In armed conflict, sexual violence is committed by men against men as psychological warfare in order to humiliate the enemy.^{[citation needed]}". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Non partisan on this subject; a few minutes clicking through the references in the article made it clear (to me at least) that there are distinct patterns of violence against men, and that these have been the subject of study by both academic and government groups - the topic is notable. -TB (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable WP:SYNTH with the subtext that there is no such thing as Violence against women because (it is claimed) everyone has violence perpetrated against them, and violence against females is matched by the same violence against males. Only trouble is, there are no authoritative secondary sources making that claim. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely do not understand how you are extracting that subtext. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ While the topic is notable and there should be proper sources to build an article without resorting to synthesizing facts it currently stands as an extremely poor mix of general statistics and poorly sourced statements. The article falls under WP:SYNTH, although it is possible to improve it I support deleting it in its current format. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advocating that articles on "notable" topics that are "possible to improve" be deleted... Astounding. Simply astounding. Were that philosophy extended to the encylopedia as a whole, we would not HAVE an encylopedia. Marteau (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand, most likely deliberately. None of the content in the current article is appropriate, and slimming down the article to the single sentence of value that would persist: "Violence against men is violence against men" is grounds enough for deletion. Rather if the article were to be recreated it would require the use of the extensive sociological, anthropological and psychological literature that is available, instead of using io9 sensationalist nonsense combined with random statistics. Even a notable topic needs to at least reach stub status to be included in Wikipedia. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstand nothing. The fact is, you admit the topic is notable, you admit there is information available to improve it, you admit it can be improved, yet rather than give it a little time to improve, you advocate its outright deletion. That is, as I said, astounding. Marteau (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you do. Articles may be deleted for lack of content, regardless of whether they have potential to be improved. I do not oppose having the article, simply having such an abysmal article as was this one in its previous state. Some of my concerns have been dealt with, but I still stand behind that without the improvements it should have been deleted. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE all say that we don't delete an article on a valid topic because of content issues that can be fixed through normal editing. James500 (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Though this topic has always been surrounded by controversy, both here on Wikipedia and elsewhere, it's a topic that we're going to have to deal with as long as one can establish notability. Based on the coverage amongst third-party publications, I'm inclined to believe that this is a valid topic. The article content may not be as good as one would hope, but that in itself shouldn't be a reason for deletion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: - controversial articles does not equal deletion. Clearly notable article. Period.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve I ran across this when checking the GGTF to see if anyone replied to a notice of an article that I placed on Jimbo's talk page about the toxic editing atmosphere and how we might improve it. Sounds like a crusade to eliminate something that does noes not reflect a political POV. Violence against men is real and destructive to families. The notion that this is not a big deal is purely political. Not having an article on this is not improving but harming the encyclopedia. The violence against women is destructive to families and I would say keep that if it ever came up. 208.54.38.224 (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC) — 208.54.38.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Obviously notable topic with clearly reliable sources. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per James500's logic above. This topic clearly is notable under GNG (see this search for example). Obviously the article needs improvement but that's no reason to delete. I'd say more but am writing on phone. Ruby 2010/2013 15:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You understand that nearly all the hits in the search you linked to do not include the phrase "violence against men"? Haminoon (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He neglected to quote the search phrase. Try this. Marteau (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well sourced and relevant topic. I fail to see why this should be deleted when articles about dubious concepts such as mansplaining or otherkin are tolerated. Akesgeroth (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Informative and well sourced topic with plenty of room to expand, as issues of male focused problems such as these are growing in interest among the scientific community. There's no valid reason to delete this topic, and doing so would only further bring into question ulterior motives and welcome accusations of parties involved. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well thought out and relevant article. Why is this even being considered? One of your editors is a well known militant feminist with strong anti-male views. That is the ONLY reason this is being considered. Violence against men is considerably more prevalent than any other type of violence and this is just one more example of the anti-male bias in the media. If you allow a militant feminist to edit articles like this, she will do anything to get her views across, but I cannot allow my gender to be marginalised like this. How dare you even think about removing this article?88.107.70.141 (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC) — 88.107.70.141 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks. There is absolutely no evidence one of the editors has "strong anti-male views". Haminoon (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - There are some serious questions here on the motivation of the petitioner considering what can be perceived to be a conflict of interest. I would even call WP:NOTHERE as Wikipedia is not a forum for gender 'disputes' from individuals despite certain people and WIKI:FEMINISM continuously moving outside of their scope and remit to attack articles covering the problems men face. 31.51.3.181 (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC) — 31.51.3.181 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There have been absolutely no serious questions about the petitioner's motivations so far. Haminoon (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been brought up many times here that the user who has brought this article up for deletion has a conflict of interest due to his/her personal views. While personal attacks should not be welcome (which the user you responded to here has thankfully refrained from), these motives should be considered. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah its been brought up, but there has been no serious questions and no evidence of a conflict of interest. I don't see what motives there are to be considered. The nominator's opening statement if clearly argued and can stand on its own. Haminoon (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that you stating that there's been no serious questions is disingenuous. You may disagree with the claims, but I can assure you that those who have brought her motives into question take it very seriously. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not serious enough to produce any evidence. I'm still waiting to see evidence of the editor's "strong anti-male views" and "conflict of interest". It sounds more like personal attacks than "serious questions" to me. Haminoon (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence has already been produced in this discussion several times over. Again, I feel you're being disingenuous. If you are not being willfully ignorant, though, and have instead legitimately missed these points, I strongly urge you to go back and read these comments. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism? That's evidence of nothing. The argument is specious and a thinly-veiled personal attack. Its like saying someone who edits punk articles shouldn't edit disco articles. Haminoon (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would be like the creator of National Association of Police Organizations, championing police, calling for the deletion of Police brutality, a page portraying police in a negative light. Or neo-Nazis calling for the deletion of the Holocaust page.. For someone who cares enough to create a whole project championing a specific gender's rights and then calls for the DELETION of a page which intimately concerns the opposite gender. Any user who calls for DELETION of any active page should and always will have their motives questioned.Grillmaster423 (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what Grillmaster423 said. The claim that these concerns are just "specious" and "a thinly-veiled personal attack" are flat out false and nothing more than a flippant personal attack in and of itself in a vain attempt to discredit differing opinion. These concerns of the submitter's background and motives are very relevant and very important to the discussion at hand and need to be taken into serious consideration. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article should be neutral, not "championing" its subject. People who don't understand this shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. ~~ Haminoon (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely why "Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism" should be deleted. Shakespeare Monkey (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Objecting to the existence of a perfectly viable WikiProject has no business in an AfD (or anywhere else). Please stop this battleground behavior right now.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There exist several instances where violence against men is exclusive of other types of violence.

For instance, in the US, Police shoot and kill men at a much higher ratio than they do women. According to a Mother Jones article of arrest-related deaths, there were "4,594 arrest-related deaths of men in 2003-2009, versus :218 for women. In other words, 95% of those deaths are of men, 19 times more than women."

Other instances of violence specifically directed at men is with the recruitment of child soldiers of Africa. The violence is unique because the perpetrators turn their victims into lifellong instigators of the violence as :well.

Psychological violence has been conducted on men to a much higher degree in the military, where males were and are frequently subjected to a higher degree of verbal and physical abuse than their female counterparts.

Sexual violence against men has been conducted during medevil times with the flaying of Eunuch

Domestic violence against men is also an issue (Lorena Bobbit dismembered husband's genitals, Andrea Yates killed her and husband's five children - 4 boys and 1 girl.).

Prison violence in the form of sexual abuse has been perpetrated by female guards against male inmates.

Social violence against men as in when extreme feminists attempt to censor very real subjects on the sole basis of their own biases. Then when their own personal biases are called into question, decry sexism.

The list is ongoing. Granted, the topic is not well researched, but it does indeed have definable parameters of "specific types" of violent actions conducted against men - explicitly.Grillmaster423 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you do some more reading on child soldiers in Africa and feminism before you attempt to add any of this to the article. Haminoon (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not seeing an issue. It provides symmetry to violence against women Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator, Shibbolethink, and others. Insufficient reliable sources that treat "violence against men" (as distinct from violence in general, or domestic violence in general) to justify an article on this subject.Fyddlestix (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "Blow it up". Possibly there is an article, but the current article is just a mishmash. If a subject exists in reliable sources then an editor can recreate it. But that task is made easier by deleting an article that cannot be improved. TFD (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can do something "based on the advice given by" WP:BLOWITUP, however you cannot do something "per" WP:BLOWITUP. It's a personal essay, not a guideline or policy. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is consistent with reason 14: "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia." Tendentious OR is not suitable content. TFD (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This title can cover other types of specific violence targeting men as well, like Enforced Conscription and Circumcision 58.7.81.106 (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The main issue here should be WP:GNG, but the nomination makes no attempt to explain why this topic isn't notable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as the article Violence against women exists, then this article too has a right to exist, if you are willing to have this article deleted, than the other article too, should be deleted, unless your definition of "equality" means being extremely unequal and one-sided, but that has no place on an encyclopedia 216.73.201.25 (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no issue here; the article is about violence done specifically to men because they are men. MeanMotherJr (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question How did we manage to create an article on this without mentioning violence against gay men? The word gay appears only in a navbox. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an improvement that should be made to the article, especially if there are sources that show that there is more violence against gay men than gay women (I strongly suspect that this is true, but I haven't researched it myself). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets the notability criteria. It clearly lists and exemplifies several types of violence largely and specifically affecting men, all with reliable sources. I don't agree with the OR/SYNTH argument either. The referenced sources clearly identify and distinguish the types of violence directed towards men in particular. Surely there is room for improvement, but that goes true for most Wikipedia articles. --386-DX (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Cirt, Grillmaster, et al. TFD may have a point about WP:BLOWITUP, but I don't think the page is completely irredeemable. Random ^(?) 06:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm seeing a lot of !votes (mostly from IP users) based solely on perspectives of sexism, and not on WP principles like WP:RS and WP:V (e.g., "keep because we have a 'violence against women' article" and "delete because sexism against men doesn't exist"). I strongly suspect that the canvassing is to blame; in any case, is there anything that can be done about this? I'm a bit rusty. Random ^(?) 08:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a number of reliable sources available that can be used to write an article on violence against men. However, the article that we currently have has serious issues with original research and synthesis. If kept, the article will need to be substantially edited to bring it in line with Wikipedia policy. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've posted the above comment, a lot of the original research has been removed and better sourced sections have been added in. I was leaning towards moving to draft-space, but I think the article has been cleaned up enough to stay in article space. I therefore vote Keep. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Against" means in opposition too, or in opposite direction. How can men be in opposition or contrary to their own actions? Since most violence 'suffered by men' is indeed caused by men we can't possibly have an article violence against men centered around cherry picked statistics about male vs male violence. I suggest deleting this article since men are not under any threat nor victims of gender inspired violence an coercion. Therefore there is no need to have such a provoking politically incorrect article on wikipedia giving it unearned legitimacy. As quote Anita Sarkesian a foremost expert in the field "There's no such thing as sexism against men. That's because sexism is prejudice + power. Men are the dominant gender with power in society." — Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) November 15, 2014.67.78.248.206 (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC) — 67.78.248.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: On top of that definition of "Sexism" being a feminist-only definition (not the accepted definition of the world at-large), the article isn't about "only" male on male violence. There are plenty of forms of violence against males not perpetrated by males. Moreover, I find your characterization of men being unable to be opposed to male-male violence inflammatory and derogatory.Yhufir (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that male on male violence is not a threat, is the reason we need this article to explain the concept. See Androcide where men systematically wipe out thousands of other men. USchick (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it laughable that you quote Anita Sarkeesian in support of your ridiculous statements. I thought there was no one left who took her seriously. Youtube: Anita Sarkeesian Busted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellznrg (talk • contribs) 03:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the violence against men definitely has place, and it is under-reported for a variety of cultural and historical reasons. And it is not only under-reported, it is often reversely-reported, and the man is arrested when he isn't at fault. These are all contentious issues, hence topic deserves the article. There are radio shows devoted to the topic, ex. Tom Leykis Show. Yurivict (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve - The topic is notable and distinct. Perusing Google scholar brings up a number of resources in addition to the American Psychological Association article already mentioned. --George100 (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cirt Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve- The Issue of Military Aged Males being targeted for killing based on their Male-ness deserves study. There are historical examples such as Batang Kali massacre and more recent examples such as US President Obama declaring all military aged males guilty of being militants/combatants based on proximity. "It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."-“It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants,” the official said. “They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.” ^[2] 66.190.154.43 (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Ben Seeman (I thought I had a login but I don't. If the article is not deleted I will polish and add the information about military aged males tomorrow.)[reply]

References

^ http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2002-17282-000
^ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=3&_r=2

Keep and Improve Men are the cause of more violence then women are, but men are also more often the victims. It is important to understand the cause-effect relationship. There is research about this topic, e.g. about men attacking other men to show their dominance, to keep "their" group intact, or to increase their own standing. Also historically men have diproportionally been the perpetrators and victims of violance, I think thats enough to create a good article. Currently the article is not good, but the solution should be improvment not deletion. Update: This article could be changed to an acceptable level and then put under e.g. "Pending changes protection" to prevent any coathangers or other trolling.Lucentcalendar (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Lucentcalendar (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it would be appropriate of anyone voting "keep and improve" to do a minimum of improving themselves. Crap like this is exactly why the article is up for deletion. Spending time arguing here while letting that fly under the radar isn't very reassuring. If you want this article kept, please make an effort to make sure it doesn't become a coatrack of grievances from the men's rights movement or other synthesis nonsense. Peter ^Isotalo 14:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A number of commenters, including the nominator, are claiming that maybe this shouldn't be an article at all, which is what the debate here is about. --George100 (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's trying to insinuate that a good number of the "keep" !voters just want a coatrack against feminism. Random ^(?) 15:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm actually insinuating that many of those who have been piling on votes haven't paid much attention to what little content there is. The nonsense examplified above is pretty damned bad. So less talk, more action.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any argument to the effect that a poor article on a valid topic must be improved within the deadline of an AfD cannot normally be entertained. Firstly, it conflicts with the editing and deletion policies. Secondly, it would allow people to force the mass deletion of large numbers of articles by deliberately swamping AfD with far more nominations than limited manpower of the system can handle. It would invite mass nominations. James500 (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please... People are merely piling on votes by now. This is not a debate about procedural guidelines.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serious question: What's wrong with the diffs you cite as "crap"? Circumcision of male infants (which can never be with the infant's consent) is regarded by many activists as "unnecessary", "a violation of rights", "harmful and unethical", etc. It involves physical force to damage bodily integrity, and is thus "violence" by an entirely reasonable definition. And the example of gender-biased conscription is reliably sourced and unarguably a question of violence. Perhaps it is not the most encyclopedic content, but it is far from being beyond repair, and it illustrates that there is clearly enough material under the broad subject heading to meet GNG. (You know, in case the category and its multiple subcategories somehow didn't make the point. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to include circumcision as an example of violence against men, you have to reference it with a source that actually defines it as violence against men. WP:V applies here as much as anywhere else.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and important topic. Arguments for deleting seem to be quite weak. I cannot see the justification in deleting this?--WholeNewJourney (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve - Looking at some Sociological literature, it seems that Violence Against Men is a significant topic of discussion and one that is distinct from Violence Against Women, at least within the perceptions held within societies. I have been looking for an article to take improve, as my account is still new and has no real edits to its name. I will look to start today and hope the page is no deleted as I work. Key areas to add should be perceptions (violence against men is seen differently compared to women), violence against transmen and homosexual men (something that is much more likely to occur than against homosexual women). Feminist view points would also be a useful contribution. Johnwayne93 (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have alerted WikiProject Men's Issues to this discussion, as others have alerted the GGTF, and WikiProject Feminism. This discussion also clearly falls under their purview. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Scope of article appears to be "violence directed against men at least in part because they are men. Yet there are sections, like Violence_against_men#Violent_crime, that say literally nothing about the violence discussed there being directed at men because they are men. Ditto the Violence_against_men#Self-directed_violence section. It appears to me that this article already has aspects, and is likely to become more, of a WP:COATRACK for gender-warring. Also, I am not sure that chemical castration used judicially should be considered as "sexual violence" in the same breath as rape, in such an unambiguous and stark claim. This also shows POV-pushing to me. Ditto this spectacular example of WP:SYN: "One explanation for this difference in focus is the physical power that men hold over women making people more likely to condemn violence with this gender configuration,[6] although this does not explain why female on female violence is more likely to be reported than male on male.[5] Nor does it explain why sexual violence on males within conflict scenario gathers so much less attention than female sexual violence in conflict scenarios." Wow. So yes, delete. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Jytdog, this type of content-specific criticism would be a lot more more useful on the talkpage. Peter ^Isotalo 19:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point was to show the lack of WP:NOTABILITY of the topic itself; sorry for not making that more clear. Clearly there are so few good sources that you have to try to pile in unrelated subject matter. And I will re-iterate that even if there is some core of reasonable content, it will be in my view hopeless to keep the article NPOV. Hopeless. It will just be a magnet for advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - There seems to be consensus for keeping this and I myself have trouble making sense of the argument that this isn't notable. It's clearly something that is being researched, eventhough there's a tendency for men's rights movement demagogues to skew the issue. I share your worries, but having an article about about a specific aspect of violence seems perfectly relevant. And if we can keep Israel-Palestine conflict despite all the controversy, I'm sure we'll be able to handle this. Your comments and scrutiny are valuable and believe they would be helpful on the talkpage. Peter ^Isotalo 19:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, I just removed the content that does not belong in the article, either because it is WP:OFFTOPIC or is WP:SYN. Let's see what happens. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment, OK I cut the "castration" content from the article and pasted to Talk for discussion, as I don't think the content/sourcing makes the case for "violence against men". Discussion is here: Talk:Violence_against_men#castration and the point is that the content and sourcing made no case about castration as sexual violence against men. (no case to see it as any kind of violence against men. Could be! it is just not there) What happens? Reverts with "gender parity is all I care about" note:"The Violence against women article has a section on FGM. Not sure whether that falls under "sexual," though - how's this?)" This is the kind of bullshit that will drive this article if it is not deleted. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd like to apologize for that, actually - my revert was because of impatience in waiting for your talk-page comment, combined with not seeing the problems you later pointed out in said comment and making a faulty assumption about your reasoning. (FWIW, you turned out to have a point, so I'll leave the matter alone.) That said, the danger of an article becoming a WP:COATRACK or a misinformation dump is hardly grounds for deleting it - just look at any article about a controversial subject. Random ^(?) 04:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        That is very gracious of you. Nonetheless, "The Violence against women article has a section on FGM" reasoning is completely wrong-headed. There is nothing in this article that cannot be handled in others; this article will just be a shit magnet for knee-jerk gender-parity-driven editing. Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jytdog EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Ex abuso non arguitur ad usum" (legal maxim meaning, "From the abuse of a thing you cannot argue as to its use") Marteau (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I meant in the summary (see Jytdog's talk page). I do agree, though, that the article is "a shit magnet for knee-jerk gender-parity-driven editing" - just look at all the IPs, etc. here who are only using gender parity to defend its existence. That said, that's more a reason to protect the article to some degree than to delete it. Random ^(?) 17:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, delete !votes have been unable to advance a rationale that VAM isn't notable. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 18:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well referenced, reads pretty neutrally. I'd posit that it's on the good side of GNG and verifibility guidelines. This AfD seems entirely political. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 23:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been substantially improved since the afd was started. Would you care to explain why the afd "seems entirely political"? --Haminoon (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Haminoon: As per Cirt [25] this article was aleady in good shape—still in need of further work but in no condition warranting deletion. The nominator's WikiProject memberships also raises a warning flag with me with regard to COI, especially as gender issues are highly politicized to begin with. In my eyes, this AfD looks bad. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And before you respond to me the way you have to others in this AfD, let me just preemptively counter with the appearance of COI does not mean there is a conflict of interest; however it remains suggestive, correctly or not. I am not trying to cast aspersions on the nominator, but especially after the GGTF debacle, editors should be wary of taking actions that could lead to people making such assumptions of COI in the first place. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read COI? I don't see how "full of absurd factual errors" can equal "in good shape". But then maybe I have a COI because I worked on a page of woman at some point.--Haminoon (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are alleging that the article is full of absurd factual errors, perhaps you'd care to point to one? 76.64.13.4 (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We were talking about the article when the afd was started, but here are some removals: 1, 2, 3. --Haminoon (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing factual errors. wcd.nic.in actually is the "Ministry of Women & Child Development, Govt. of India"; their PDF does in fact claim that more boys than girls were victims of sexual abuse - PDF page 88, labelled page 74 states Out of the total child respondents, 53.22% reported having faced one or more forms of sexual abuse that included severe and other forms. Among them 52.94% were boys and 47.06% girls. On the next page we read In fact 9 out of 13 States reported higher percentage of sexual abuse among boys as compared to girls, with states like Delhi reporting a figure of 65.64%., and Out of the total child respondents, 20.90% were subjected to severe forms of sexual abuse that included sexual assault, making the child fondle private parts, making the child exhibit private body parts and being photographed in the nude. Out of these 57.30% were boys and 42.70% were girls. So, yes, the study does in fact explicitly state the conclusion that you say it doesn't come to. It also cites a study by Save the Children claiming that Among respondents, 48% of boys and 39% of the girls faced sexual abuse.

The claims being made by the Government of India study are restricted to India, and were represented as such in the diff you removed. The WHO estimate (not a specific study) they mention, OTOH, gives worldwide numbers, which the Government of India reasonably believes to be underestimates based on their own findings. Your assertion that it quotes a WHO study that says the opposite is the factual inaccuracy here.

Regarding the claims about prison rape, you appear to be claiming that something printed in an unreliable source is necessarily an "absurd factual error", because it contradicts your assertion that Most rapes are not reported - one for which you provide no citation. For what it's worth, Wikipedia's article on rape by gender already reports, with multiple reliable sources, that Several studies argue that male-male prisoner rape, as well as female-female prisoner rape, are common types of rape which go unreported even more frequently than rape in the general population. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain the Indian government study didn't come to the conclusion presented in the wiki article. The report authors understand statistical significance. Re prison sexual assault, the claim in rape by gender is quite different to the claims in the edits I linked to above. You clearly didn't read the edit summaries. --Haminoon (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't discuss this further on this page - would make sense to do so on the article talk page if need be. --Haminoon (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nomination is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:POINT incarnate. It is an example of bad faith editing to the point that it shocks the conscience. The notability of the topic is readily established by the references on the article and I am kind of surprised this hasn't been snowballed already. 184.75.210.198 (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: To delete the violence against men article while maintaining the violence against women article would be fundamentally unconscionable. Both pages deserve to exist. To presume that violence perpetrated against men and women respectively is uniform is to overlook social and historical evidence to the contrary. Improve the page, if you will; but do not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerOfThorium (talk • contribs) 02:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth, and the sources used can verify the information, then matter of worthiness is heretofore debatable, under the existing guidelines and policies the material has met the threshold for inclusion. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can think of several unique topics that would fit under this article, such as violence against homosexual men, domestic violence against men (which is a real issue), sexual violence against men, and advocacy for violence against men from feminists and other misandric activists. Cla68 (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"feminists and other misandric activists"? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems more like an argument for Delete per WP:Coatrack. --Haminoon (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I came to this article with an open mind, since I can imagine there being a notable topic somewhere in here. What I found is poorly sourced unambiguous WP:SYNTH and seems to be basically a WP:COATRACK ready for men's rights advocates to hang their coats on. Clear case of WP:TNT, though I'm not entirely sure this community at this point in time is capable of maintaining an article like this. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I want this garbage taken off Wikipedia. It is way too triggering for most people, and it's absolutely a lie, how dare men think they're more victimized than Women. Delete Delete Delete. Make men pay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.142.182 (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commentRunning searches across .ac.uk and .edu domains suggests there has been some work on sexual violence against men and domestic violence against men but not much in other areas (it rapidly tailed off into things like violence against men in music videos).©Geni (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge and redirect to the existing article on domestic violence against men. The rest of it is, as pointed out above by several knowledgeable Wikipedians, WP:SYN. The evidence that much of the content is gender-based is not just thin, it is entirely absent. The arguments to the notability of the topic apply properly to domestic violence against men; the only group of men for which there is compelling evidence of gender-based violence outside of the domestic context is the gay and trans community, which again is a separate article. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The material here clearly goes beyond domestic violence in many ways, as made clear by the category infobox. There is no question that forced circumcision and involuntary castration primarily affect men - given their definitions. There absolutely is compelling evidence of those practices being performed on men who are not gay or trans - as described in the articles for those topics. There is also a reliably source claim, as it stands, that In situations of war and genocide, men and boys are sometimes singled out and killed - I don't know how more clear and obvious a case of gender-based violence could possibly get. Is being killed in a war somehow not "violent"? Is being singled out on the basis of being a "man" or "boy" somehow not "gender-based"? I don't have access to T&F, but the Amazon summary for the book being cited helpfully tells us that In that article, which provoked considerable debate when it was first published in 2000, Jones argues that throughout history and around the world, the population group most consistently targeted for mass killing and state-backed oppression are non-combatant men of roughly fifteen to fifty-five years of age. So I hardly see how any WP:SYN is going on; the author's position is represented quite accurately. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point of Order. I recognize this isn't a vote but I would like to simply point out that it's obvious the subject matter deserves an article. There's enough material and sources to go around. Whether or not we keep it in the current form makes no difference. I'm not familiar enough with policy to say what the next move is but I don't think there is any rational and objective person who can deny that the article is worth keeping. I just want to urge the powers that be to make a decision here and those who want to contribute can get on with it.Yhufir (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MRM nonsense. This article only exists for the same reason someone tried to AFD the violence against women article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMy first instinct was to vote delete. But looking at it again, I think, except for reflexively dismissing the topic as being weird, there is no objective reason to delete the article. The content is quite legit. A fast look at the sources seems to indicate that the sources are also legit and on-topic. Best.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:COATRACK issues as the references are all over the place and seemingly limitless in [WP:SCOPE]].--JasonMacker (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is poorly written and laden with WP:SYNTH-type language, but that's not a criterion for deletion. The subject is obviously notable (especially in the context of war and genocide). It just needs a rewrite. I think what some people forget (or are not aware of) is that improvably bad prose isn't a reason to delete an article on a notable subject. My suggestion is that the article be kept, and the poorly written parts either removed or rewritten from a more objective perspective by someone with knowledge and access to appropriate sources on the subject.-RHM22 (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

War and genocide are covered in War and Genocide.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete every aspect of the article appears to better belong in other articles and there does not appear to be any actual coverage of the topic itself. These are being stuffed together as a WP:SYN WP:COATRACK . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you seen the sources specified here? And that's just about genocide-related violence. Peter ^Isotalo 19:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

but that is just the point - they are about an aspect of genocide, not about an aspect of "violence against men".

I genuinely don't understand this stance. We have thousands and thouands of articles on overlapping topics, but provided with a single example of reliable sources with serious, scholarly discussion about violence, you argue that we can't have this because we have a top-level article on it. This is not constructive debate.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we have topics that B, C, D, E that sources have discussed we can have articles about B, C, D, E. However, we cannot lump them together as topic A unless sources have discussed topic A and the sources have discussed topics B, C, D, E as they relate to A otherwise it is plain and simple WP:SYN and WP:COATRACKing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 4th nomination? heh, give it up already, pls...--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 19:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aldnonymous (AldNon), it was deleted the first two times and renamed/redirected the third time. So to say that those recreating it should "give it up already, pls" is more accurate. Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Then I am even more surprised why this page still able to exist without being deleted, delete restored delete restored again, doesn't seems to be a sane action, let this page be. Even stronger reason to Keep, amirite?--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 20:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Aldnonymous (AldNon), that's poor rationale. This article is past its "third time's a charm" mark. But the motto for the recreation of this article is "Try, try again." Flyer22 (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well keep anyway <redacted per advice on my talkpage>.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 21:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time for me to stop replying to you now. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aldnonymous, it isn't appropriate to refer to women as "my cute little X". Please consider striking that. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aldnonymous, Sarah is absolutely right. That was an unprovoked and very serious breech of civility. Please redact it asap.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Yes. I am a feminist. (And yes, I have been accused of being a 'radical' feminist, the crazy kind who has no rationality...) But I think that things such as male rape happen to men too, and they are not immune. In fact, because of the same reasons we need feminism, violence against men has gone largely undocumented. Is it on the same scale as violence against women? No, I don't think so. Does it exist? Yes. Now I am concerned about things such as this article becoming non-neutral and misogynist, but at present, I don't really see a problem with it right now. Surely men are not immune to violence. My point is - some of the reasons why violence against women is so common is also part of the same reasons why sexual violence against men is so undocumented. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 20:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kikichugirl: this is no place to be casting aspersions. Please strike your comment about radical feminists. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to insult or offend anyone, EvergreenFir. I was simply (sarcastically) quoting the many allegations against feminists that use "radical feminist" as an insult. I apologize for my tone. As such, I have modified my comment to reflect this view. I hope this helps clarify my meaning. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 22:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kikichugirl: Thank you and yes that does clarify it. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kikichugirl: I'm curious what you mean re: "Is [violence against men] on the same scale as violence against women? No, I don't think so." Unless you're talking about a very specific form of violence, I'm fairly certain violence against men is considerably more prevalent. If we're talking about violence against men because they're men vs against women because they're women, I might agree with you. Even then, the degree of violence is a factor (ie women initiating domestic violence more frequently vs women being survivors of serious injury due to domestic violence more frequently). Separately, I wanna thank you for contributing to the discussion. I think you're on point.Yhufir (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume they mean proportional victimhood compared to perpetration. Men commit more crime and are victims of more crime in sheer numbers, but women are disproportionately victimized. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to make this an issue here or hijack the topic, I really am just curious: "Disproportionate" compared to what? I have a hard time believing women are more frequently victims of violence. It also seems dubious that women are disproportionately targeted by men (or women for that matter). Are we saying that women are disproportionately victimized in terms of ratios? I just don't understand how that could make sense.Yhufir (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the venue for education. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel he's asking more for you to back up your claim, which is a legitimate request. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a SYN violation, and per Kaldari's point that it's comparable to Violence against adults. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was nice red link SlimVirgin.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 20:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Men make up only half of all adults. These articles are also about adults. Violence against LGBT people, Violence against women, Violence against prostitutes, Violence against Muslims in India. USchick (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the current article is suffering from some WP:SYNTH issues, but that's not a valid reason to delete. The article needs rewriting and expansion, but there is definitely scholarly coverage of the subject out there, and it passes notability requirements. I don't think the comparison to subsets like age groups is valid. Sexual dimorphism is the fundamental split in humanity. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. You aregue that the current article is WP:SYN and then offer your own novel synthesis as a reason to keep. I really don't think a proper article can be written at this title. It's been tried, for a long time, and failed miserably thus far. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I offered policy-based reasons, and then added an opinion. It's been done many many times in AfD arguments, and there's nothing particularly wrong with it. Also, it would be worth your time to examine the previous AfD votes. The first two are for completely different articles than what currently exists, and had very little participation from the broader community. And like I said, there is scholarly coverage of this exact subject in reliable third-party sources. Forget my opinion and focus on that. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Massive WP:SYNTH violation, there are not the sources to support this article yet, if the topic is even useful --5.81.54.189 (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses shouldn't be allowed to vote, as in many/most cases user can easily get a new IP address simply rebooting the modem, or changing modem MAC address, or stopping by at another coffee house location with WiFi. There is no reliable way to establish the credentials of such users, nor can there be. Anybody half knowledgeable can cast many votes from IP addresses without much effort or time investment. Yurivict (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You sure you want to go down that road, Yurivict? I count at least 15 keep votes[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] that could be discounted with similar arguments.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not based on number of "votes". USchick (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to make it clear that anyone who comes here with a "strong keep" has absolutely no business complaining about IP-users that want to delete.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks in this discussion. Thank you. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does my position on the issue have to do with IP address voting? IP address votes only distract, and may look like votes to people not understanding modern networking. Make it confusing. Yurivict (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has been significantly restructured so any further issues should be discussed at the talk page instead of nominating it for deletion. According to PMID 19269726 in Social Science & Medicine: "There is growing concern that sexual violence against men during conflict has not received adequate attention" [41] -A1candidate 00:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (no redirect) and improve. The sources appear to show notability, and the proper response to coatrack issues in an otherwise-notable article is improving the article and removing the coatracks. I am serious about the "...and improve" part. Clearly this has attracted a lot of attention, and that attention should translate into article improvements, not just tallk page or AfD battles. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per everyone above and the fact it passes GNG, ~~I see Violence against Women hasn't been nominated ...... I wonder damn well why!,~~ –Davey2010^Talk 03:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was, by someone who did not understand that two wrongs don't make a right. Marteau (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll be buggered, Well in that case I was wrong and I apologize. –Davey2010^Talk 03:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A simple Google scholar search on "violence against men" produces a large number of well cited papers from reputable journals that specifically address the subject. The main areas of research pertaining specifically to violence aimed towars males seem to be domestic violence (both physical and sexual), sexualized and dehumanizing violence during armed conflict, prison violence and violence aimed at homosexual men. A decent article should be able to be produced from those sources. Capeo (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have a point if all I did was do a google search. Instead I looked specifically for scholarly articles on the subject. I've linked a few below. Thanks for being overtly dissmissive before investigating the subject at all though and lumping me in with obviously canvassed MRM SPAs. Capeo (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Domestic violence against men, or potentially merge to that article and the main Violence article. "Domestic violence against men" obviously passes the GNG, this article I don't so. No one has presented any evidence that "violence against men" has been discussed in depth as a matter of scholarly interest (or even mentioned in the media, outside of a few blogs and fringe sites), outside the scope of domestic violence. Nom makes some very good points, and I'm inclined to agree with several of those above that this article constitutes WP:SYNTH. IgnorantArmies (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in the post directly above yours I'd say a Google Scholar search [42] does indeed show the subject has more than enough scholarly interest to support an article and GNG. Capeo (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, in what way? From the top 20 results, I see none that purport to be about the general topic of "violence against men" – all fall neatly into the categories of "domestic violence", "sexual violence", and "violence against women", all of which are actual subjects of academic discussion and all of which we already have articles on. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50] and I could go. Do the types of violence researched tend to fall into categories as you describe? Yes, they do. As does every bit of research about violence against women so you could make the same argument against that article. Capeo (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia "by editors for editors". It's for all of humanity. Why should only editors' opinions count? In any case, men are very often killed *because they are men*, for example in war. Men are no use to an invading army and are in fact a threat. Shakespeare Monkey (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Domestic violence against men. The page defines violence against men as violence that is aimed at men and caused at least in part by their being men. But the sources do not state that male soldiers kill male soldiers because they are male. Most killed soldiers happen to be male because most soldiers are male. And military aged men are murdered in armed conflicts to prevent them from taking up arms as soldiers. It has nothing to do with their biological sex. The same thing would happen to women if they were the sex that constituted the (potential) majority of armed forces. So the entire "mass killings" section is one big glob of WP:Synth. For example, this primary source that's used in the article says that "the adult male population of the Muslim community" was murdered but it doesn't state the reason. The murderers might have very well had religious reasons or strategic reasons rather than the desire to kill Muslim men because they were men. It's one of the countless examples of WP:Synth. The section discusses war genocide and gendercide, both topics have their own articles. The same thing goes for the sexual violence section. None of the sources claim that men rape men because the victims are male. The topic violence against men as defined in the article, i.e. violence against men caused at least in part by their being men, simply does not exist. The article is itself the best proof of that. The sources discuss male rape, violence in armed conflict, etc., all subject with their own articles. But the sources do not state that the victims' biological sex is what caused the violence. The lead definition itself is ridiculous and based on two opinion pieces in TIME magazine and The Telegraph. It just shows that someone was grasping at straws when they decided to create a "violence against men" article. I'm surprised that the editors responsible for most of the content haven't been indefed for persistent Synth. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of faulty logic happening here. Women can't take up arms? Only untrained civilian men can take up arms? Who will supply the weapons? The definition is not sourced, so it hasn't been decided whether or not "because they were men" is part of the definition. In any case, men have been losing their lives disproportionately for centuries and the violence is justified by society. This article is not passing judgment, it's presenting facts. USchick (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not because they are victims because of their gender. That's what the article is about: violence against men because they are men. That's what makes the topic notable for all "Violence against FOOBAR". The article is not and should not be some collect of issues related to men and violence. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about the definition belongs on the talk page. There's already a section there. USchick (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It deserves mention here as without that definition, it automatically fails GNG. We're trying to see if with that definition if it deserves deletion or not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Just because the discussion is relevant to the talk page doesn't mean that it's not also relevant here. EastTN (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this strikes me as fairly arbitrary demand. It's like asking that a precise, unambiguous definition for topics like Germans in India or women in science and calling for deletion if none can be precisely agreed upon. You have set up this condition by referring only to violence against women even though it's very clear that the nature of violence against women and men are entirely different. Peter ^Isotalo 19:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the examples you give, Germans in India or women in science, most folks are going to have a pretty clear idea of what the article is about. There may be some ambiguity around the edges, but the basic topic is easily understood. Coming to it cold, I would have assumed that "Violence against men" dealt with violence uniquely directed against men, rather than violence that just happened to affect one or more men. In any case, the scope matters, in part because we need to evaluate how many reliable sources are available for the subject matter within the scope of the article. We just need to know what the "it" is that we're talking about having an article on. EastTN (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth does your assumption about the topic matter here? Or the personal assumptions of any other user? It's very clear that "violence against men" simply means "violence directed against men". It's no more complicated than any variant of "X of/in/from/against Y". And I assure you that I could present just as many arbitrary demands to the examples I gave. Nationals of Germany or German-speakers? India as a nation or a sub-continent? Historically or contemporary? Women working with science or being the subject of science? Natural science or academics in general? I could go on forever. What you're talking about here is content, plain and simple. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the article topic is valid or not.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The purpose of this article is not to set up a single, uniform definition of "violence against men" because that is already defined by the article name itself. The same is true for an absolutely huge number of articles, but we would never delete the slightly peculiar articles Soviet cuisine or beer in Syria with claims that it can't be pinpointed exactly. It's a somewhat arbitrary demand that assumes that the article has to be established fully-formed. More importantly, this is not an encyclopedic sidecar for violence against women. It's a standalone topic, just like far more obscure topics like male bra or female condom are not just "companions" to brassiere or condom. It's very clear that violence against men is very different from violence against women. It's very also clear that violence against men has not been studied as well as violence against women. It's also a lot more complex because it is about a group that has a dual role of both perpetrator and victim. All of this should be taken into account and care should be taken to keep it from being a platform for men's rights propagandists. But as an encyclopedic topic, it has more than enough merit. Case in point, a simple search on Google Books and Google Scholar. Judging by these sources, it's clear that even research about violence against women has a lot to say about this merely by pointing out the differences between to the two types of violence. If this was really just a topic unworthy of an article, there ought to be plenty of references to scholarship that actively dismisses the idea that it can be defined, studied or described. Peter ^Isotalo 19:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians cannot set up an article title and then drop things that we think are related to it. The topic itself has to be a subject of discourse and the items entered into the article must be discussed within that context by the original authors, WP:OR, particularly WP:SYN. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject it to fire and brimstone. Obvious use of Wikipedia as a soapbox. Still, this is studied and debated a lot, so we should rewrite it from scratch. Sometimes only fire and brimstone can save an article. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] ttp://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2002-17282-000

[2] ttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=3&_r=2

[1]

[2]