Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 15
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was close at nom request (wrong venue). creator request, no !votes Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toronto Bills[edit]
- Toronto Bills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This page doesn't even deserve a re-direct there is no such thing as the Toronto Bills and the Buffalo Bills are still in Buffalo. Even if they play a game in Toronto they are not called the Toronto Bill plus their is no re-direct from the San Juan Expos to Montreal Expos and this is the same deal. Fire 55 (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Fire 55 (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a procedural note: since this is only a redirect, the discussion should be at RfD instead of here. But this is easily a candidate for R3 speedy deletion as a joke redirect. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cooper Green Mercy Hospital[edit]
- Cooper Green Mercy Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails to pass WP:N Irunongames • play 23:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Google News search shows significant media coverage from reliable sources. Per Ardua (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems like a notable institution to me. I expanded the article using an entry I wrote for Bhamwiki. --Dystopos (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Although not cited in the article, it has significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. Altairisfartalk 14:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Keep, refimprove. Certainly notable Chzz ► 15:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Although it's true that the overwhelming majority of those Google news sources are from the news in Birmingham, Alabama (duh), there are some non-local sources [1] that note the Balm of Gilead as an innovative program. But let's face it, most 300 bed hospitals would not pass the notability test. Mandsford (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Closedmouth (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Hicks (Youtube series)[edit]
- The Hicks (Youtube series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Lacks notability Wes! • Tc 23:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable Irunongames • play 23:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN series. JBsupreme (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was already deleted once. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hicks. End run around the deletion process. Speedy delete this, this is not notable, and there are no claims of notability. Warn the creator of the article about process and explain WP:DRV to them. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above - non-notable and already deleted once. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep -- User:Whpq hit it on the head: there is evidence that the subject is notable, but you have to – pardon the pun – comb through the references to find something that meets WP:RS standards. The article is, admittedly, in need of help, and I am going to list this article on WP:CLEANUP to get assistance in fixing it. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rodolfo Valentin[edit]
- Rodolfo Valentin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Advertisement/resume written by subject. Despite being seemingly "well sourced", not a single of the 19 different "references" actually show any notability. Half of them are dead links, the rest are either personal sites, salon directories and a two local news papers/blogs. BJTalk 23:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 23:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not notable enough for inclusion. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment article has been a target for silly statements, which are a BLP issue, however being a target of interest suggests that he may be notable, even if no claim is made in the article. I am not voting to delete or keep, but if soe one wants the article deprotected I am willing to oblige. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Rodolfo Valentin is a notable hairdresser. He is one of the top 10 hairstylist and one of the top 10 salons in New York. He is constantly appearing in newspapers, magazines and television. Please see attached some of the links to newspapers and magazines:
[2] New York Times (newspaper) [3]Guest of a guest
As shown in the Daily news, new york newspaper, Rodolfo Valentin, thru his foundation, gives FREE hair prosthesis that cost almost 4 thousand dollars to cancer patients who cannot afford to buy one. And the most exemplary thing is that he does not use it as a tax deduction. He is an extraordinary human being who deserves respect. He uses his own money for this charitable deed to keep a promise to his mother who also died from cancer. See the attached Daily News article[4] Keeping a promise [5] Leukemia society [6] the queens courier ( Newspaper) [7] Prestigious, ROBB REPORT MAGAZINE [8] Amarillo, website
[9]New York Magazine, rated 10 out of 10jormarie 17:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodoval (talk • contribs)
I was trying very hard to correct the links ( some of them have been moved to other files or archives, but for some reason I am not able to do it. I will fix them, when the system let me.
the user [[10]] Bjweeks, is making an statement that Rodolfo Valentin is only showing "in a couple of local newspapers"...when in reality Rodolfo is named by the press as the "celebrity hairstylist" of New York as it is showing in the last article written about him last month.[11]Guest of a guest---It is very offensive. I think Bjweeks has some kind of interest in hurting Rodolfo Valentin name. Anyone can just type RODOLFO VALENTIN in google, yahoo, msn or any other search engine, to find almost 1 million search results, thousands of them related to television, magazines and newspapers articles68.161.91.72 (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Notable enough for inclusion. A lot of relevant links on the internet.Nicole reutman (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC) — Nicole reutman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep- based on my own search for sourcing which turned up this NY Times article. I think that notability for the subject is established. The current state of teh article however is another matter. The current references need to be combed through in detail. For example, the reference for "Frith Powell, Hellena (March 3, 2007). "Big hair, small stomach". London (UK), Sunday Times. http://helenafrithpowell.com/uncategorized/big-hair-small-stomach. Retrieved on May 3 2007." which is cited as the Sunday Times is actually a columnist's personal blog. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The subject may have some notability; however. many of the current references don't establish that. More relevant and reliable sources used as references could help better establish the notability of the subject. As a side note, the article itself also needs plenty of work. --Shruti14 talk • sign 19:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep good article, very well sourced. The notability of Rodolfo Valentin is established.Susy parker (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC) — Susy parker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 22:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Viperball[edit]
- Viperball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Lacks reliable third-party sources and does not suitably demonstrat notability. lifebaka++ 23:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 23:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - 18,000 Google hits for Viperball , but I didn't see any that would be considered a reliable source in the first 100. Only 23 hits for "five down football", none of which meet WP:RS. No Google News hits. This does not preclude notability, but the burden of evidence is on the article's editors. As of now, there is no such evidence. Strikehold (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, can not find any indication that the game is notable. Can't find any reliable sources that discuss the game. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. How in the world was this ever kept the first time around??? JBsupreme (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Misreably fails notability. Niteshift36 (talk)
- Delete per strikehold; checked google; not notable Chzz ► 15:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's interesting. It's just not notable (i.e., zero news coverage). As far as the statement that there have been "exhibitions... conducted with college and high school players around the United States"... sorry, keep dreaming. Mandsford (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable that I can see. Looks like fun though... but "fun" does not equal "notable" for Wikipedia. Also, only "sources" are the organization of the game itself, so it kind of has a "self-promotion" feel to it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Ausgang[edit]
- Anthony Ausgang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced promotional article created by User:Ausganger. No indications of independent third-party coverage nor any other signs of notability (none of the "documentaries" mentioned appears to have been made by a notable filmmaker). Previous version of article deleted as copyvio; new version is highly derivative of the various autobiographies the subject posts around the web. A moderately funny article, but still not a notable subject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Other than the obvious WP:COI violation, I have not found anything reliable about him after doing a few searches. From what I see, fails WP:N; if somebody links me to a reliable source mentioning him, I will be more than happy to reverse my !vote. The DominatorTalkEdits 22:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete various obvious issues. -Falcon8765 (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep I changed per work below, particularly Juxtapoz Art & Culture Magazine, seems encyclopedic but still needs work...Modernist (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no refs, source etc. Artypants, Babble 18:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The original entry for Anthony Ausgang was removed and the replacement had no references. The current entry is up to Wikipedia standards. Thank you for the crit.Ausganger (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Ausganger[reply]
- Delete. Huge COI, fails WP:BIO. Brian Reading (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is certainly not the case that there is no indication of notability. There is a bibliography in the article. I've checked out one entry, namely Juxtapoz Art & Culture Magazine (a major publication for Lowbrow art), a search of which returns 37 results for Ausgang, where he is listed amongst those after "well-known artists", and "including such infamous names as", and described individually as "renowned Low Brow artist". Ty 07:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Respond. User:Ausganger keeps rewriting the article, and added most of the material you mention after the AfD began. However, very few if any of the sources he references are genuinely independent of the aricle subject, and so aren't sufficient to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would seem to be a good thing for the article, if more sources have been added and should be encouraged. I presume you're not saying Juxtapoz Art & Culture Magazine is not independent of the subject, and it is a major publication for the genre. I've put the bibliography from the article on the AFD talk page, to save excessive clutter here. I am not deeply knowlegeable on the matter, but an immediate appraisal of the works shown does not seem to show a lack of independence. If you're familiar with the material, it would be helpful if you could indicate under the entries which are not independent and why. Ty 01:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm referring specifically to the much smaller number of actual references cited in the article, which include the subject's own website, an exhibition catalog, and books of undetermined nature -- but not Juxtapoz. I've got no idea what's the content of the "bibliography" items, but the Juxtapoz search comes up almost exclusively with lists including his name, not the substantive coverage needed for notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely we have to take into account the bibliography also in assessing this, and can't act as if it doesn't exist. Also, if Juxtapoz refers to him among "well-known artists", "top notch folks", "such infamous names as", and as "renowned Low Brow artist", this is an assertion of notability within the field from an authoritative source on the subject. Juxtapoz results.[12] There are 32 results from Google Books,[13] including Morning Wood ("the work of 50 of the world's current top 'alternative creators'"),[14], La Artland,[15] Pop Surrealism, where his works are reproduced,[16], Weirdo deluxe: the wild world of pop surrealism & lowbrow art, ("23 leading artists"), where he is a featured artist,[17] as well as a monograph Vacation from Reality published by 9mm Books.[18] As no mention has been made of any of this in the AfD to date, let alone an assessment of it, I presume no one has actually so far done a search of Google Books, so the opinions expressed above seem to be a shot in the dark, rather than an informed evaluation. Ty 11:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely if Ausgang was genuinely notable, it would be possible to cite the "significant coverage," more than "trivial mentions," as required by the general notability guidelines. Not everybody mentioned in a book is notable enough for an individual Wikipedia article, after all, and the burden of establishing notability rests with those who claim a subject is notable. So far all we have is variations on the subject's autobiography and a "bibliography" where most of the items involve no more than the "trivial mentions" (in long lists of names) that don't establish notability. The article is still just a minimally sourced autobiography with no significant content that doesn't come from the article subject himself, and no substantive argument, no "informed evaluation," here or anywhere else, showing he meets the notability guideline -- just Google Search results, which standing alone aren't enough to do the job.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely we have to take into account the bibliography also in assessing this, and can't act as if it doesn't exist. Also, if Juxtapoz refers to him among "well-known artists", "top notch folks", "such infamous names as", and as "renowned Low Brow artist", this is an assertion of notability within the field from an authoritative source on the subject. Juxtapoz results.[12] There are 32 results from Google Books,[13] including Morning Wood ("the work of 50 of the world's current top 'alternative creators'"),[14], La Artland,[15] Pop Surrealism, where his works are reproduced,[16], Weirdo deluxe: the wild world of pop surrealism & lowbrow art, ("23 leading artists"), where he is a featured artist,[17] as well as a monograph Vacation from Reality published by 9mm Books.[18] As no mention has been made of any of this in the AfD to date, let alone an assessment of it, I presume no one has actually so far done a search of Google Books, so the opinions expressed above seem to be a shot in the dark, rather than an informed evaluation. Ty 11:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm referring specifically to the much smaller number of actual references cited in the article, which include the subject's own website, an exhibition catalog, and books of undetermined nature -- but not Juxtapoz. I've got no idea what's the content of the "bibliography" items, but the Juxtapoz search comes up almost exclusively with lists including his name, not the substantive coverage needed for notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would seem to be a good thing for the article, if more sources have been added and should be encouraged. I presume you're not saying Juxtapoz Art & Culture Magazine is not independent of the subject, and it is a major publication for the genre. I've put the bibliography from the article on the AFD talk page, to save excessive clutter here. I am not deeply knowlegeable on the matter, but an immediate appraisal of the works shown does not seem to show a lack of independence. If you're familiar with the material, it would be helpful if you could indicate under the entries which are not independent and why. Ty 01:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Respond How can a subject be referenced by a source and yet be independent of it? That is impossible. If Anthony Ausgang is the main topic of a print or online article, then that article is a legitimate reference for the Wikipedia entry. Just because one person haven't heard of something or someone doesn't mean that no one else has.(Ausganger (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Respond. User:Ausganger keeps rewriting the article, and added most of the material you mention after the AfD began. However, very few if any of the sources he references are genuinely independent of the aricle subject, and so aren't sufficient to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this should be re-written by someone other than the subject. I looked into the sources, they are all legitimate, however, it is all non-critical portfolio-style coverage. The volume of it, however, would show notability within this genre, I'd imagine. (It's critical importance, I personally believe, comes from the broader (sub)culture it's associated with - in and of itself, there's not much to say about it, but that doesn't mean it's not notable). If one were to use only secondary sources to write this article, it would be, at best, a stub with about two sentences. Deadchildstar (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The currently asserte facts are from unsuitable sources (seems some misunderstanding here about primary sources, etc) - it *might* be possible to construct an appropriate article, but I see nothing in this one that meets the prerequisites. Why was this listed, when it already had lots of delete votes? Chzz ► 15:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 22:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael "Mash" Ashley[edit]
- Michael "Mash" Ashley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article was prodded with "non notable, executive of company with no corresponding wiki page". Article creator placed a {{hangon}} tag on the article. I am boldly assuming they meant to contest the prod, however, since they didn't give a reason I'm sending to AfD. Procedural nom; as of yet, I have no opinion on deletion. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable person of a non notable company Irunongames • play 21:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Skyraider (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable employee of a non-notable company. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage in reliable sources about this CTO of a startup that hasn't really got off the ground yet. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. The main argument against the preservation of this article is the lack of secondary sources. The article’s three sources – Nintendo DS Emulator Homepage, Emulator Zone and Kotaku.com – do not appear to meet Wikipedia’s definition as legitimate secondary sources. The two in-depth arguments in favor of keeping the article have acknowledged the problem with proper referencing, and unfortunately we cannot overlook that problem. The current article does not meet WP:RS requirements and, therefore, it is being removed. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NO$GBA[edit]
- NO$GBA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No coverage in secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable and not enough sourcesIrunongames • play 21:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As usual, entries on emulators are very subjective. Their grey status inherently defines that they will get little coverage from secondary sources other than aficionado sites. As far as the importance of the emulator goes, I can say that it is reasonably important, even though other emulators have now surpassed in in terms of development. NO$GBA was still the first to emulate advanced Nintendo DS instructions, though coming up with sources for that is almost impossible once you discard change logs. --Sn0wflake (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per above. Rgoodermote 22:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - to use Sn0wflak's rationale: "[emulators] will get little coverage from secondary sources other than aficionado sites." - there you go, then. This software has not received significant coverage from a reliable source: its mentions on emulator websites are either unreliable, insignificant, or forum chatter. Therefore this subject does not meet the general notability guideline and in fact would appear to be unverifiable. Marasmusine (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a number of links were raised in the previous AfD, two of which are Kotaku and Eurogamer. Whilst these sites are reliable, both articles fairly short and seem to be of the "press release" variety (both were published on the same date, announcing the software's release.) Marasmusine (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak abstain. I am too emotionally involved with this emulator and its article to make a rational, logical, unbiased decision. 66.188.122.212 (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Unless I'm mistaken, there were secondary sources listed in the first nomination. Ex. http://kotaku.com/gaming/top/first-nintendo-ds-emulator-running-commercial-roms-released-194244.php. http://www.ngemu.com/gba/nogba.php. http://nintendo-ds.dcemu.co.uk/no-gba-2-5b-gba-and-ds-emu-for-windows-78500.html. http://www.zophar.net/gba.html. Furthermore, a discussion at WP:VG showed how "reliable sources" are unlikely to ever exist for a subject in this matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_34#Video_game_emulator_articles_-_proposed_deletions. Why not just resend thi article to WP:VG instead? This one wasn't specifically debated on last time. 76.14.34.115 (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources. The above links show a "Wow they released it!" item with no signifcant coverage. The remainder consists of one sentence announcements with a dump of the release notes. I see no significant coverage here that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus to delete. There's certainly no consensus to delete this article; but equally there is no consensus as to if, and where, it should be merged. A merge discussion on the talk page would appear to be the next logical step. ~ mazca talk 07:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Argentines in the United Kingdom[edit]
- Argentines in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No indication that the subject is notable, with no coverage in reliable sources cited other than the population figure. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interesting one, because since the rather notable Falklands War, the relationship between Argentina and the UK is important in world politics (and both nations still claim the Falklands). I think there may be a case for "keep" to be made, but personally I'd stop short of that and stick with trim heavily and merge to United Kingdom Census 2001 Ethnic Codes.
Reasoning (for inexperienced Wikipedians): it's verifiable from reliable sources that there are Argentines in the UK, but the phenomenon is not notable enough for its own article (and there's insufficient material available to write a separate article in any case). Outright deletion isn't appropriate because the fact that there are ~6000 Argentines in the UK should certainly be recorded somewhere in Wikipedia.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly should be recorded, and is so at Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom, Migration to the United Kingdom from the Americas and Latin Americans in the United Kingdom, to name but three articles. I'm not sure how the Falklands War is relevant to this discussion though. I can see how it is to Argentina–United Kingdom relations, but not to migration from Argentina to the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, and it ought to be mentioned in Ethnic groups of the UK too. I think the Falklands War puts a shadow over anything involving Argentina and the UK, but this might be because I'm old enough for it to have had a big impact on me; let's see what other Wikipedians think.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm doubtful whether Argentines constitute an ethnic group. The whole Ethnic groups of the UK article is a mess. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, and it ought to be mentioned in Ethnic groups of the UK too. I think the Falklands War puts a shadow over anything involving Argentina and the UK, but this might be because I'm old enough for it to have had a big impact on me; let's see what other Wikipedians think.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly should be recorded, and is so at Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom, Migration to the United Kingdom from the Americas and Latin Americans in the United Kingdom, to name but three articles. I'm not sure how the Falklands War is relevant to this discussion though. I can see how it is to Argentina–United Kingdom relations, but not to migration from Argentina to the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a very good point. I'd support a redirect, but Argentine is not an ethnicity, it is a nationality, so sending it to the Ethnic groups article would be inappropriate. If we can agree on an appropriate place, I'll support it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Latin Americans in the United Kingdom? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could agree to that if it is acceptable to others. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I'm not a fan of this genre of article. There are almost certainly communities from every nation on Earth in the UK - so what? I see Tara-Palmer Tomkinson in the list yet her article doesn't mention any Argentinian connection. And Chris the Burgh was born to British and Irish parents in Argentina. That doesn't make him Argentinian. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Argentine is a nationality, not a race or ethnicity, why couldn't he be Argentine since he was born there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but I don't see any evidence that he considers himself to be Argentine. In the same way, we don't say that Cliff Richard is Indian. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as you know I believe strongly in the improvement rather than deletion of such articles, I believe that I have enough information to expand this article to an acceptable standard.Stevvvv4444 (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've actually found much more information than I thought I would to be able to expand this article, there are significant pieces of information that should allow this article to stay, I am going to go ahead to create a history and settlement section, and afterwards I would appreciate if everyone could re-think their previous thoughts. Thanks Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll keep an eye on what you add, but so far I remain unconvinced. Most of the additional material is, at best, of tangential relevance to the article (e.g. information about English-Argentine football rivalry and the popularity of Tango in the UK, which could be the case even if there wasn't a single Argentine actually living in the UK). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, if you don't like it delete it. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll keep an eye on what you add, but so far I remain unconvinced. Most of the additional material is, at best, of tangential relevance to the article (e.g. information about English-Argentine football rivalry and the popularity of Tango in the UK, which could be the case even if there wasn't a single Argentine actually living in the UK). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've actually found much more information than I thought I would to be able to expand this article, there are significant pieces of information that should allow this article to stay, I am going to go ahead to create a history and settlement section, and afterwards I would appreciate if everyone could re-think their previous thoughts. Thanks Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to one of the suggestions given above. No evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. WP:RS and WP:N being the most common arguments here for deletion. --JForget 22:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toxic Skies[edit]
- Toxic Skies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I seconded the prod; it was removed with the following justification: "I definitely vote against deletion of this article. I think we use "not notable" justification to delete article on topics we personally don't care for too easily. The plot can be verified on the producing company page (which is linked as a reference from the article), interest mainly to "Chemtrail conspiracy" buffs is noted, IMDb reference is there... This is encyclopaedia; things should be covered here regardless of our values. When I go through an actor's or director's filmography here (in this case, Heche's, I like to be able to drill through to every movie's entry."
I don't think this is convincing. I tried to find reliable sources that mentioned this film and I came up blank. References to IMDB and the producer's site are not enough, we need reliable secondary sources. At the moment, it's not notable. Fences&Windows 20:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my original prod and the above. Basically fails WP:N. Verbal chat 20:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. - 2 ... says you, says me 20:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 20:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 20:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sources are provided, no way that this can be notable. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No in depth coverage found in independent sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; Failed to find anything either. Nevard (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice and userfy the cleaned-up article to author. Despite the notables in the film, I found only one weak source. Let it come back if/when it can meet WP:NF. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable Chzz ► 15:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per my arguments listed at the top of the page. What other "reliable secondary sources" are needed besides an IMDb entry and producer's homepage? A 500-page monograph by a holder of PhD in film theory? Let's be consistent, people: we have collections of articles tens of thousands words long on obscure computer games or unremarkable SciFi TV series with the "universe", characters an plots described in excruciating detail, all without "reliable secondary sources", and nobody complains! Let's admit that we want to delete this article not because of Wikipedia principles, but because we don't like it or its premise. (BTW, I didn't see it nor I intend to, which is, of course, totally beside the point.) --bonzi (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Nobody complains"? There are deletionist hordes descending on fancruft and Prodding and AfDing it into oblivion as I type! But also see WP:OTHER. If this film had *any* independent coverage in a reliable source, it might be different - but it doesn't, so by our standards this film isn't notable. This isn't about WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I'd be happy to keep it if it had received significant coverage. Fences&Windows 16:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete: no reliable third party sources = no article. If you want just synopsis + cast, then go to IMDB -- wikipedia's meant to be for "significant coverage". (See WP:IINFO) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP Equally sick of self-rightous Wikipedia policing and deletion of posts. This is obviously a legit production, and whether third-party sources are notable enough is subjective. Furthermore, this article does not violate Wikipedia's 5 pillars which state there are no official rules of governance.Aliveatoms (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the five pillars before you comment on them, the article clearly violates the very first pillar. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 02:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it does meet WP:V, but fails on WP:NF. It may pass the Pillars, but falls before the inclusion critera of guideline. When it gets some decent press, it will be welcome to return. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the five pillars before you comment on them, the article clearly violates the very first pillar. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 02:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I haven't been able to find any significant reliable source coverage to show notability. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 02:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not notable outside of niche communities. Antienne (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete RS makes clear the necessity for secondary sources and this article has none, nor have other editors succeed in finding them. Note that IMDb has previously been deemed unreliable (as has WP itself because both are open to public editing). Further, this lack of secondary sources seems a fairly clear indicator of non-notability, otherwise we would find extensive reviews, commentary, etc. Doc Tropics 20:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep per unanimous recommendation. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikitruth[edit]
- Articles for deletion/Wikitruth
- Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (4th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (5th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (6th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (7th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (8th nomination)
- Wikitruth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:WEB and WP:NOTNEWS. Only third-party source is a single news report in 2007, nothing since then, site isn't even active any more. *** Crotalus *** 20:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Plenty of coverage. Notability is not temporary. This will probably end up SNOWy. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Close This has survived AfD seven times - notability is not temporary even if the site hasn't been active in years. Coverage is not an issue, just needs to be expanded. - 2 ... says you, says me 20:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Close there are plenty of things that are no longer active which still remain notable. So what? JBsupreme (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Historical reference. Kausill 07:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'KEEP TELL THE WIKITRUTH! Chuthya (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per Cybercobra Chzz ► 15:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Notability does not have an expiration date. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 18:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ekumaafaanu[edit]
- Ekumaafaanu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is an orphan without 3rd party established notability nor any citations. Its external link is a 404 and when I went to the Google cache, it was a default Joomla page. "Ekumaafaanu" was only in the copyright notice at the bottom. The year is 2009. Dethlock99 (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cannot find reliable sources to assert notability (under either name) Chzz ► 15:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ekumaafaanu: Zero hits on Google Scholar and Google Books. Only hits on Yahoo are Wikipedia mirrors. Anarchangel (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable. I suspect that the article is actually made in advance of any actual encyclopedia being ready. -- 16:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to List of Major League Baseball all-time saves leaders. Article is redundant as is. Malinaccier (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of relief pitchers with most career saves[edit]
- List of relief pitchers with most career saves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is a subset of information from the much more valuable List of Major League Baseball all-time saves leaders Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Major League Baseball all-time saves leaders. This page is redundant to that one but is much less valuable, as the nominator said. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 22:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per above. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Redirect Essentially the same. Eauhomme (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Duplicated info Chzz ► 15:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Human Clouds[edit]
- Human Clouds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
NN album by NN band. Band article also nominated. →ROUX ₪ 19:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 22:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NALBUM Chzz ► 16:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - AKeen (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please explain your position? –Juliancolton | Talk 17:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to One Hundred Steps - based on the search links on the article talk page, there appears to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Triple c's[edit]
- Triple c's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article fails to meet notability and has no sources to back up anything it says. Irunongames • play 19:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete speedy if possible. Nothing says why it is notable or worthy of inclusion. ESpublic013 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deleted under A7. Nyttend (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @263 · 05:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kush 2009[edit]
- Kush 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
NN album. →ROUX ₪ 19:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 22:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable 'mixtape' Chzz ► 16:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete generally, mixtapes aren't notable and I don't see any special case here. Tavix | Talk 18:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @263 · 05:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slidefinder[edit]
- Slidefinder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Search engine for PowerPoint presentations, established a year ago. Originally speedily deleted by me for a lack of any claim of notability; after the creator objected to the deletion, I agreed to restore the article to allow for expansion. I still don't think the page (after about two weeks) establishes notability in any way (and it cites no third-party references), so I am renominating it. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 22:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N, all search hits in Google (including Swedish-language ones) are press releases or business-card type information in business directories. --bonadea contributions talk 08:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. Press releases and blogs don't count. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirected to Ridgefield, Connecticut#Education. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scotts Ridge Middle School[edit]
- Scotts Ridge Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:SCH and WP:N also it also seems to be written from a students point of view. Irunongames • play 19:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, average middle schools aren't notable, and no reason to believe that this isn't average. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 22:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 22:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Ridgefield, Connecticut#Education. I checked the Blue Ribbon Schools directory, it doesn't appear on it. tedder (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lots of hits on Google News (although most from the local paper). [19] Some of the entries do look like the school is quite well-known for a couple of things. --Polaron | Talk 22:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Polaron. The school gets some non-trivial press coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SCH. A search for "scotts ridge middle school" at Google News reveals multiple references to the school, but all are in local publications and all references are trivial. Most of the articles are focused on the school district's budget, and mention multiple schools in passing as examples of where funds are or aren't going. All in all, I don't feel that it satisfies the notability requirements for inclusion. Neil Clancy 23:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Ridgefield, Connecticut#Education per usual procedures; no case for deletion has been adduced. TerriersFan (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if you've actually read Ridgefield, Connecticut#Education, but Scotts Ridge Middle School is already mentioned there. It has an internal link to its article, however the town's other middle school does not have its own article. Contrary to what you said a case for deletion has been made, that Scotts Ridge Middle School does not satisfy the notability requirements laid out in WP:SCH. These guidelines say that an average middle school does not merit an article, and that it should only be considered notable if it has received significant non-trivial press coverage. This school has not received any non-trivial coverage that I have been able to find. If you have found some, please, by all means, bring it forward. If not, I think it only obvious that we should delete the article as it is not in accordance with our notability requirements. My vote remains for Delete. I oppose leaving a redirect at Scotts Ridge Middle School pointing to Ridgefield, Connecticut#Education, because if we are striving for consistency that would imply that we should also place a redirect for Ridgefield's other middle school and, indeed, a redirect for any and all middle schools we can think of pointing to their appropriate school district's article. This is neither feasible nor necessary. Neil Clancy 15:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Ridgefield, Connecticut#Education - notability concerns. PhilKnight (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep per the snowball clause. Merge discussions could be continued on the talk page. Tavix | Talk 23:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Southwest Airlines Flight 2294[edit]
- Southwest Airlines Flight 2294 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete non-fatal in-flight decompression causing flight diversion, doesn't happen every day, but won't be remembered a year from now either. Not notable, just news: WP:NOT#NEWS akin to the flight where the captain died en route. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Does Wikipedia has a specific policy for including air incidents? After all, the Sullenberger flight had no injuries or fatalities, yet has an article. A Hawaiian flight decompressed mid-flight and was (miraculously) returned to land with no harm to anyone but the plane. I can't say for or against at this point. 69.7.41.230 (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Aviation WikiProject has the essay WP:AIRCRASH, but this is not an official guideline or policy. (Editors may have different interpretations of how these guidelines apply, and in some cases we may ignore notability criteria if following them will make Wikipedia worse rather than better.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: A flight attendant was sucked out of the Hawaiian plane, but nobody else died. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While I don't particularly care for flightgeekery, this probably would meet the conventional guidelines on air disasters. Though there was no crash, the investigation into this would likely have an effect on the industry, since a large hole suddenly appeared in the fuselage at 30,000 feet. That sucks! Luckily, nobody was sucked out of the plane, and the crew handled a sudden decompression rather well. Since one takes it for granted that a flight will not include air rushing out of the cabin, it's notable. Mandsford (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have to agree with Mandsford, a three second gnews search shows a wealth of non-trivial coverage [20]. - 2 ... says you, says me 20:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to me like this article has precedent to be kept, there's a lot of other articles that cover non-fatal air incidents such as US Airways Flight 1549, as already noted, but also ones like the Southwest Airlines runway overrun in Chicago, or the Air France runway overrun in Toronto. It doesn't seem like this one is any different. C628 {talk} 20:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.255.25 (talk) [reply]
- Keep This could expose shoddy mtc record. RokinRyan
- Keep The amount of coverage for this incident and its unusualness indicate notability. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is an aviation accident task force, the notability criteria for new articles seems to be under review judging by the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability, just happened to look through today's AfDs. I was under the impression that there were notability guidelines for aviation accidents, I'm not a regular there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems to have non-trivial coverage and has sparked a major investigation. youngamerican (wtf?) 00:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Unusual enough to be notable, I guess. JBsupreme (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This non-fatal incident has a lot to talk about, like that "football-sized" hole.
- Merge and not keep, I identify that is a lit a bit of recentism, not really important. TouLouse (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jerrysmp (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, and if it is not kept as a separate article, an incident of this nature is usually covered in the airline article so a redirect to Southwest Airlines#Incidents and accidents is a better solution than outright deletion. I am uncertain about how serious this was had there been serious injury or death the "keep" would be obvious. Ruptured fuselages, even where it did not lead to serious injury like American Airlines Flight 96 can be a serious event, but haven't seen anything that this emergency landing was particularily difficult. Comparisons to the US Airways 1549 Hudson River ditching are in my view irrelevant, as the Hudson River incident was a crash, where the peril was very real, albeit one where everyone survived, while this incident is a "mere" emergency landing on a runway where people simply walk off the plane. However, comparing this to JetBlue Flight 292, I think a hole in the fuselage while airborne is more serious than a jammed front gear upon landing. The keep vote would be stronger if this leads to an overhaul of Southwest's maintenance scheme, as that would demonstrate that the event had a real impact beyond being a news story. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I would think that the investigation into the cause of the hole would be what makes this article notable. æronphonehome 11:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I second Mandsford and C628. 18:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In-flight structural failure of pressurised fuselage makes this a notable accident. Mjroots (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sufficient sourcing and coverage at this time to keep the article. In any regard, the content should stay. If this disappears off the radar in six months to a year, it can be merged into the Southwest article with a redirect remaining at this title. —C.Fred (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to Jennette McCurdy per notability reasons. --JForget 22:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So Close (Jennette McCurdy song)[edit]
- So Close (Jennette McCurdy song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. Has not been covered by any notable artists, and has not appeared on any notable charts. At best, it should be redirected to Jennette McCurdy. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 17:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 22:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Jennette McCurdy - No evidence of standalone notability. Title is fine for a redirect as it is consistent with WP:DAB and is the title experienced Wikipedians would likely look for the song under. Rlendog (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Jennette McCurdy. Fails WP:NSONGS. The song was never nominated for any major awards, Billboard.com shows that the song never charted. Frehley 16:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nom --97.119.255.239 (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete--JForget 22:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-war publications[edit]
- Anti-war publications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
List of non-notable websites compiled by author with COI (see [21] and other contribs). This article seems to fail the WP:NOT policy, potentially under WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO and verging on WP:NOTSOAPBOX. I don't see how this page could be rewritten without including irrelevant, non-notable external links, or becoming a personal essay. Nothing here is suitable for a merge to anti-war. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No point in keeping this articleIrunongames • play 19:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a great example of what Wikipedia is not, this article also fundamentally violates several Wikipedia core tenants, namely neutral point of view, no original research, and conflicts of interest. I also wouldn't be surprised if this topic has been covered in depth and neutrally in another article. - 2 ... says you, says me 20:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The page is a mess, lumping together blogs and similar web content, quotations from notable persons and works of literature, and everything in between. Though being a peacemonger myself, delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Violates WP:POV, WP:OR and maybe WP:SYNTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Talk about damning with faint praise. The article subject is worthy, the execution is unsalvagable. The lede makes a stab at the subject, but unfortunately gives up and moves to list format. Even in its half-prose, half-list form, this article does not make a scratch on the surface of a discussion of the works that fall under this category. 30,100 hits for publications with the words "Anti-war" in them, and this article lists ten, one of which is Facebook. Anarchangel (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @263 · 05:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ethan Brehm[edit]
- Ethan Brehm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable performer, no reliable sources. My speedy deletion tag was removed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 22:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails notability search and coverage. No secondary or third party sources. Tree Karma (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was : Speedily deleted as a copyright violation/promotional, and (temporarily) protected. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kamlesh Verma[edit]
- Kamlesh Verma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This marks the third attempt to create this article, the two previous ones having been speedily deleted on July 14 and 15. It contains an autobiography of a person, and in addition to the conflict of interest it fails to prove notability. Favonian (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete creator has not established notability and google doesn't help, appears to be the subject of the article. See also K.Verma another copy that has been nominated for speedy delete. noq (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Promotional, conflict of interest, original research, no specific evidence of notability. User has asked "please let it be or please guide me how should i edit my information", so I've made some suggestions on his talk page. TheFeds 18:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete G12 of this. I've tagged. --SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 19:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete G12 from me as well then. Hadn't seen that one. Favonian (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Copyright violation, no-brainer. - 2 ... says you, says me 20:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Power folk[edit]
- Power folk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is an article about a nonnotable music genre, completely lacking references and any verifiable text. If one takes away the unverifiable claims, there is no article left. This is a contested prod, the contesting editor claiming the term is used by the website CDBaby, which does not seem like a reliable source to me.-RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because once again, we are dealing with nonnotable musical "genres," in which the term is not widely used or recognized by critics or reputable music publications. We are also dealing with a lack of references in verifiable sources. Both articles consist mostly of lists of artists who are alleged (without sources) to be examples of these genres. In the case of Avant-pop, in particular, the definition of the genre is so wide-ranging that The Beach Boys and the Beatles, The Velvet Underground and Blondie are said to be notable examples. Avant-progressive rock is not nearly so, uh, generous in its definition, but it says nothing that is not already said by the Progressive rock and Rock in Opposition articles. Delete them all as non-notable and poorly referenced.
- Avant-pop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Avant-progressive rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Power folk & Avant-pop, delete Avant-progressive rock - I don't know what the nominator considers a "reputable critic" but the normal rule is to follow what reliable sources say. In this case:
- "power folk" is used in at least 126 news stories ([22]), CD Baby, Rolling Stone, and many other source
- "avant-pop" isn't a genre per say but rather a term (widely) used to describe experimental pop-music used in over 900 news stories ([23]), 400 books ([24]), Rolling Stone, and many other sources (obviously there are many false positives in these results)
- "avant-progressive rock" isn't widely used and should be deleted or redirected to avant-garde music
The lack of current adequate sourcing for bands listed in the articles is a content problem and not a matter for AfD. Continuous items should be flagged with [citation needed] or removed, while things that can easily be sourced should be. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to ThaddeusB: Ok, let's take these one at a time. First, "power folk." The link for the Google news stories are not really helpful, since they clearly use the term in a whole lot of different ways. Frankly, a concert review in a local paper probably got the term from the artists themselves, and that does not prove notability because the artists are not notable. The article would still lack a clear definition, and simply deciding to define established artists (The Pogues or Flogging Molly) as power folk will not fly 'cause no reputable critic has ever done so. The CDBaby link proves nothing, because sites like that are not good sources. The Rolling Stone link, though certainly reputable, uses the term in an off-handed way that gives no clear notion of what they mean by it, more like a buzz word. The larger point is, there is nothing that could be said in this article that would not be better said in the Folk rock article, which is the proper place to discuss the aforementioned bands.
- Now, "avant-pop" is a somewhat more complex matter, since the term is in circulation. However, the news and book links are, once again, of very little help, since a great many of them are not about music at all. The Rolling Stone link is, again, relevant and notable, but it provides no clear meaning for the term, and the examples given are across the board. They seem to use the term as a catch-all phrase for the otherwise undefinable (Jon Hassell and Beck, amongst others), and not as a genre. Clearly, "avant-pop" is a term that is used in some circles, but its definition, just like "power folk," is elusive. No article can be encyclopædic if it lacks a definition, and it cannot have a definition if it does not have good sources which are in agreement on said definition, or, even if in disagreement, at least provide a basis for a meaningful discussion of said definition. This is clearly lacking here. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree - "avant pop" is quite easy to define. It is "experimentally pop music" just like avant-garde is experimental music in generally. Neither is really a genre of music, but that doesn't mean it isn't a notable music term. The article can serve as a history of "cutting edge" pop music, which is what it currently attempts to do. Obviously it needs sourcing and needs to stick to what the sources actually say, but that isn't a matter for AfD.
- As to "power folk" I agree it is a bit borderline, but think that just about all the sources are using it to say "hard hitting" or "fast paced" folk music as opposed to the usual "soft" nature of folk music. Put another way it is music played in a rock & rollish style but done with traditional folk instruments. I think there is sufficient usage to justify an article, but I wouldn't object to a merge with folk music either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Avant-progressive rock & Avant-pop: Both avant-progressive rock and avant-pop are referenced by reliable secondary sources, and are in widespread use (Google returns 1,000s of hits). Power folk needs to be expanded and properly referenced to establish notability, otherwise it should be deleted. --Bruce1eetalk 06:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both avant-progressive rock and avant-pop only feature one source inline cited on each page, and neither of them fit Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to fix them yourself, but we don't delete articles based on lack of current sourcing - if we did half the encyclopedia would disappear. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Insert the sources, then. So far what I've seen hasn't established them as actual genres. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I stated my reasons for the deletion of "Avant-progressive rock" and Bruce1ee has unfortunately said nothing here to rebut my statement. Anything that is said in that article is already said, or could be said, in the "progressive rock" or Rock in Opposition articles, or in the articles on the relevant bands. There is no reputable or reliable source that shows this to be a legitimate genre. As I said above in my response to ThaddeusB, a link to Google hits does not help when most of the articles are simply not relevant or not reputable. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Avant-progressive rock is defined here. Is The Gibraltar Encyclopedia of Progressive Rock not a reliable secondary source? --Bruce1eetalk 06:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not. It's a fansite. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Avant-progressive rock is defined here. Is The Gibraltar Encyclopedia of Progressive Rock not a reliable secondary source? --Bruce1eetalk 06:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I stated my reasons for the deletion of "Avant-progressive rock" and Bruce1ee has unfortunately said nothing here to rebut my statement. Anything that is said in that article is already said, or could be said, in the "progressive rock" or Rock in Opposition articles, or in the articles on the relevant bands. There is no reputable or reliable source that shows this to be a legitimate genre. As I said above in my response to ThaddeusB, a link to Google hits does not help when most of the articles are simply not relevant or not reputable. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Insert the sources, then. So far what I've seen hasn't established them as actual genres. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to fix them yourself, but we don't delete articles based on lack of current sourcing - if we did half the encyclopedia would disappear. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete power folk and avant-pop but
keep avant-progressive rock. Avant and power are common descriptive terms and it is no surprise that one can find results for avant-pop or power folk on a google search. One can also find results for "nice pop", "smart pop", "retro pop" and many other similar terms that couple an adjective and noun together. Heck, you can even find results for "avant folk", "power rock", "power disco", "power jazz", "power hip-hop", "avant hip-hop", etc. A google book search indicates that avant-pop is actually a term widely used in the field of literature and some of those google news results clearly refer to avant-pop in the literary, not musical, context. There is no indication that these journalists are using the term avant-pop to refer to the same thing: this article on the NYT is about a jazz musician playing in a brass band, this article refers to someone that is "like Siouxsie Sioux in a tussle with UNKLE", this article refers to some electro-disco thing, etc. There is no common lineage, no common grounds, nothing in common other than the fact that different journalists like to use this fanciful term to describe different music. Ditto power folk. Avant-progressive rock should be renamed to just avant rock. The subject has been the subject of at least one book and appears to be recognized in numerous other books as well. Unlike avant-pop, there does appear to be some consensus on what avant-rock is: namely, the original Rock in Opposition bands, their offshoots, descendents and the bands they inspire or influence. That's a common lineage there. --Bardin (talk) 09:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There used to be an Avant-rock article, but it is now a redirect to Experimental rock. If a case can be made for a distinct genre called "Avant rock," and the book links you provided seem to indicate it can, I would have no problem with a redirect. But, we need to sort out the differences between "experimental," "art," "avant," and "progressive" rock. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. NSR77 T 00:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Fair Deal (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there needs to be significant coverage about the term, not just evidence of usage. PhilKnight (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moby Dick (band)[edit]
- Moby Dick (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
article makes no claim of notability for its subject. speedy declined WuhWuzDat 16:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I contested the speedy on the basis of the mention of the band in Ana Stanić's biography. decltype (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - despite mention in article of Ana Stanić (who appears to have a somewhat limited notability, arguably not enough), the band itself does not appear notable at all.
-- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Moby Dick was one of most popular bands in Serbia during 90's and early 2000's. It's hard to find data on the Internet for this period of Serbian music as Internet wasn't widely used in Serbia before early 2000's. You can still however buy Moby Dick's albums from various sites specialized in bands from former Yugoslavia. As for notability, I'm not sure how someone who's not from this part of the world could judge if someone is/was a notable musician or not. Of course, if English Wikipedia is supposed to be for English/American/Australian... related articles, then this is another thing. But I believe English Wikipedia should contain articles about subjects from all around the world, as English is considered world language number one. Satellite779
- Keep - No joke, noted in scholarly works by David Titus and other scholars. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and see comment by Satellite779. Gosox5555 (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasons are 2005 Hungarian Metal Award (now in the article) and discography. --Ilion2 (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ilion2, unfortunately, we're not referring to the same band, as Serbian pop-dance Moby Dick couldn't have won Hungarian Metal Awards as it's neither a heavy metal band, nor it's Hungarian. Maybe you could create a page for that band. Still, this doesn't reduce the notability of Serbian Moby Dick as extremely popular dance act in Serbia during 1990's. Satellite779
- Thanks. To get around further problems I moved Moby Dick (band) to Moby Dick (Serbian band) and changed Moby Dick (band) to a disambiguation page. Should this AFD-page be moved too? --Ilion2 (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Added more data and references, extended info box. Satellite779 —Preceding undated comment added 08:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete, clearly not notable. Enigmamsg 21:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AI WU[edit]
- AI WU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
CV for graduate student, not notable CRETOG8(t/c) 16:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable and it's written like a auto biog Irunongames • play 19:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete A7/ non-notable, research philosophies do not constitute a valid assertion of notability. - 2 ... says you, says me 20:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @264 · 05:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aptech[edit]
- Aptech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Advert created by someone affiliated with the company where notability doesn't seem to have been establish satisfactorily. Nja247 15:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep This is an international publicly traded company that far exceeds WP notability standards. Here are a few of hundreds of mentions in recent articles, in Economic Times,[25], Bloomberg,[26], Business Line,[27], Times of India.[28] I like this sentence from the Times of India article, which puts Aptech before some boutique mom-and-pop firms that you may have heard of: "Top executives from 22 leading IT companies, including Aptech, Cisco, Cognizant, Exl Services, Infosys, Microsoft India and Nucleus Software, participated in the survey." Priyanath talk 17:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm surprised that this is even coming to AfD. The company has received ultra-wide coverage per gnews, is traded on the Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange of India, market cap of Rs6600Mn. Despamming should be addressed through tags or just plain old chopping off of junk. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 17:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdraw as I don't see this being deleted. Tavix | Talk 04:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of Arecaceae genera by alphabetical order[edit]
- List of Arecaceae genera by alphabetical order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Redundant article to both List of Arecaceae genera, which presents all this information in a well-organized list format, and Category:Arecales genera, which presents the same information in an alphabetical format. Tavix | Talk 15:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Alphabetic listing is a completely different approach to a listing than a taxonomic list, and the only reason this is proposed is because the article currently have suspiciously similar titles: if List of Arecaceae genera was even modically more developed, it'd be at taxonomy of the Arecaceae and nobody would even consider this discussion relevant (compare taxonomy of the Orchidaceae and list of natural Orchidaceae genera). Furthermore, a list can provide much more information than a mere category can (starting with author citations and synonyms, such as in list of Acer species), and "redundancy" with a category is normally no justification for deletion. Circeus (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the other list was more developed, this article would still be redundant as they are both providing the same information. Also, I've read WP:CLN and I know that lists can provide more than what categories do, I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is there is already a perfectly good list for this information and simply sorting it by alphabetical order is redundant, because that is what the category's job is to do. Tavix | Talk 17:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting an otherwise perfectly legitimate page merely because it is not perfect already (i.e. you want to delete it solely for not including extra information, if it did, you would be laughed out of AFD and you know this) is incredibly shortsighed and not even worth refuting. Circeus (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The two lists serve two different functions, and both warrant inclusion. It would be possible to merge them into a single page with a sortable table, but this would, I think, heavily constrain the development of the taxonomy page. Hesperian 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I agree with Circeus that ultimately the taxonomic list should be included in a taxonomy of Arecaceae page, at which time this list should be moved to List of Arecaceae genera. Hesperian 00:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As mentioned by Circeus, List of Arecaceae genera should be at Taxonomy of the Arecaceae and as mentioned by Hesperian List of Arecaceae genera by alphabetical order should subseqently be moved to List of Arecaceae genera. Lists of genera, species etc., when the titles are unqualified, should be in alphabetical order by default. Melburnian (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Categories of this size are useless for browsing, since they are spread over several pages. Alphabetic lists of topics are common, despite the overlap with categories - most have been renamed "Index of foo" in recent times, rather than "list of foo by alphabetical order" - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Index. Guettarda (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - although I'm somewhat sympathetic to the notion that a category covers the alphabetical angle, the current category isn't alphabetical because Elaeis is under "oil palm" instead of Elaeis. A list also can give author abbreviations (which this list now does), and perhaps things like geographic range or a description of a few words (not currently in this list, but in some species lists elsewhere on wikipedia). Kingdon (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @264 · 05:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dustin Chung[edit]
- Dustin Chung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable footballer. Having a Youtube video and being a Chinese Jamaican doesn't make him notable. Spiderone (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 15:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable athlete. Jogurney (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm in Toronto ... not notable! Nfitz (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable football player. --Carioca (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plays for Portugal FC in the Canadian Soccer League, the highest professional soccer league in Canada. --Ilion2 (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know who added that but it's not true Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues Spiderone (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Source that CSL is professional : http://www.canadiansoccerleague.ca/page.php?page_id=7741. Please give a better source when removing this here [29]. I reverted this. --Ilion2 (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment still no proof he has played Spiderone (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Games played in total 25 for Portugal FC : http://www.portugalfc.ca/player_profile.php?player_id=201957&team_id=49963. --Ilion2 (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's doesn't make sense. This league consists of players who have full-time jobs, and play soccer on the side. The level is far lower than major Europeans leagues such as League of Ireland. And it's at best the third level in the Canadian soccer pyramid (I'd argue it's the 5th). Have you ever watched a CSL game? Sure, it's professional - they get paid to play; but not very much. Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Games played in total 25 for Portugal FC : http://www.portugalfc.ca/player_profile.php?player_id=201957&team_id=49963. --Ilion2 (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment still no proof he has played Spiderone (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Source that CSL is professional : http://www.canadiansoccerleague.ca/page.php?page_id=7741. Please give a better source when removing this here [29]. I reverted this. --Ilion2 (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know who added that but it's not true Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues Spiderone (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. An initial headcount gives this result: delete 13½, redirect 1, merge 1½, keep 8 (discounting the opinions of Pontiff Greg Bard and Josh Keen for making no policy-based argument). This means we have prima facie a no consensus situation, so I have to examine the "delete" arguments advanced to determine whether any of them mandates deletion without respect to consensus or outweighs all "keep" arguments. I find that this is not the case. The arguments advanced for deletion are principally WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH, but many people who want to keep the article argue that it can be rewritten to address these concerns. The discussion is therefore closed with a result of "no consensus to delete", but may be renominated in a few months if the article is not rewritten and/or renamed to address any SYNTH/COAT concerns. Sandstein 06:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Christian violence[edit]
- Christian violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A classic coatrack. Yes, let's throw in the Lebanese Civil War with Guy Fawkes with the Klan and with Ugandan rebels, and voilà, "Christian violence". No doubt, plenty of violence has been committed by Christians over the last 2 millennia, some of it in the name of the Christian religion. But it seems preferable to treat each notable instance as a discrete topic, rather than linking them all where no one else has done so. Biruitorul Talk 15:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
- CommentThere are no Wikipedia rule violations here. WP:COATRACK is an essay; it is not required to be a guideline, as content that is contrary to its recommendations may be altered without removal of the article in order that the article adhere to the real rule behind it, WP:NPOV. Secondly, why is it "preferable to treat each notable instance as a discrete topic"? And, is not objecting to "linking them all where no one else has done so" invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST? Neither of these latter considerations are WP rules; inclusion as essays would be required for them to be even considered as modifiers of content in an article, let alone reason for deletion of an entire article. Anarchangel (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad, apparently there is an actual policy against PoV forking: WP:POVFORK. But in fact, the essay WP:COAT, the nomination itself, seconds of the nomination, and more nominations and seconding of nominations in more AfDs than I really care to think about, all violate WP:POVFORK thusly: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it." Anarchangel (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll address one of your points, since I made it rather poorly the first time and you raise a valid objection. About the "linking them all where no one else has done so": the policy violation I meant to point out was WP:SYNTH. ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.") If a scholarly work actually addressed Ian Paisley, the Albigensian Crusade, Eric Robert Rudolph and Cromwell together under the heading of "Christian violence", or "violence by Christians", or some such, then this would be a valid topic. But what's actually happened is that User:Robert Tyson has taken those, put them all together, and manufactured this "topic" without a scholarly framework to support his contentions, and to support linking them. (Which is also why treating these separately is preferable: precisely because no one has covered them at once.) That violates policy, and is what I meant to write earlier. - Biruitorul Talk 03:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hits on Google Scholar, with only the results for the -exact phrase- All results of each word occurring separately in the sources omitted:
- Control groups:
- 7 "Buddhist terrorism"
- 28 "Buddhist violence"
- 368 "Muslim terrorism"
- 1,270 "Muslim violence"
- 1,590 "Religious terrorism"
- 5,710 "Religious violence"
- 1,960 "Religious violence" with no occurrence of the word "Christian" in the work
- 2,770 "Religious violence" with no occurrence of the word "Muslim" in the work
- 4,820 "Religious violence" with no occurrence of the word "Buddhism" in the work
- A large number of scholarly works, evidence of which is shown above, discuss Christian violence and list examples of Christian violence together. They may term it "Christian violence" specifically, or use other terms, and either discuss Christian violence within the larger context of religious violence, or specifically. The inclusion of this focus in WP is not an original synthesis, but reflects scholarly discourse on the subject. Neither "Christian violence" nor "Religious violence" are Synth. They are widely used terms. "Terrorism" is not a substitute, as the wide range of types of violence in the article, and the lower number of hits on Scholar, indicate. Anarchangel (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great observations, Anarchangel. Thank you for that. I really think that takes the wind out of most of the arguments for deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the words are used together in a sentence doesn't resolve the WP:SYNTH issue; what is needed is a clear framing of the issue of Christian violence by third party sources that provides an idea of what does and doesn't belong in the article. Realistically, I think you're unlikely to find an academic source that says "this is what Christian violence is" because it's way too broad a topic for a single definition. The objection is not that no reliable source uses the phrase 'Christian violence', it's that no responsible academic source is going to discuss two dozen ethnic, political, and religious conflicts spread out over several centuries and geographies as though they were a single subject. Putting Eric Rudolph and the Crusades in the same article asserts that there is a connection between these two; what source has actually asserted such a connection? What is the nature of the connection? --Clay Collier (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two points: First, a large part of the objections you raise can be solved by renaming the page as "Christianity and violence," as several editors opposing page deletion suggest. Second, it is a false framing of the issue to say that Eric Rudolph and the Crusades have to be connected to each other. Rather, they need only to be connected to Christianity. Given the large number of hits, and the books cited lower on this talk, your doubts that none of them would contain enough analysis to reference a revised version of the page are too speculative to support deletion over revision. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the words are used together in a sentence doesn't resolve the WP:SYNTH issue; what is needed is a clear framing of the issue of Christian violence by third party sources that provides an idea of what does and doesn't belong in the article. Realistically, I think you're unlikely to find an academic source that says "this is what Christian violence is" because it's way too broad a topic for a single definition. The objection is not that no reliable source uses the phrase 'Christian violence', it's that no responsible academic source is going to discuss two dozen ethnic, political, and religious conflicts spread out over several centuries and geographies as though they were a single subject. Putting Eric Rudolph and the Crusades in the same article asserts that there is a connection between these two; what source has actually asserted such a connection? What is the nature of the connection? --Clay Collier (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great observations, Anarchangel. Thank you for that. I really think that takes the wind out of most of the arguments for deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hits on Google Scholar, with only the results for the -exact phrase- All results of each word occurring separately in the sources omitted:
- I'm not sure why it would. This article is a mess. It tries to incorporate too much into it. The other danger here that nobody likes to speak about is the above merely counts hits and extrapolates a level of interest without knowing exactly how it's used, in what context or for that matter if it is even dismissing the idea. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would because the synth arguments go down the drain. No one is claiming that every hit is a noteworthy cite, but even if some of the hits are criticizing the idea, that information would be appropriate for a rewritten article. The arguments that the page is a mess and contains too much are arguments for revision, never arguments for deletion. With the addition of this new information, it seems to me that no one in this discussion has put forth a valid, in-policy, reason for page deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First, my reasonong for deletion wasn't WP:SYNTH, although I believe that is also an issue. While some other scholar may have written a paper on "christian violence", that doesn't give license to start throwing everything but the kitchen sink into an article and claiming WP:SYNTH can't be a problem. Do any of these articles combine Gay Fawkes, Eric Rudolph and the Lebenese Civil War with the Klan? Just because someone wrote about the topic doesn't mean synth can no longer be an issue. As I've said from the start, the article is really a coatrack to push a POV. Nothing I've heard here changes that opinion for me. I think the info in this article would be much better presented in a couple of smaller, more neutrally presented articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You deny it now (sort of), but a review of this discussion does show that most editors who argue for deletion do so on the grounds that it was synth to place the content of the page within the title the page was given; that argument has now been disproved. You say the page was created with the intention of pushing a POV. There's no reason for you to change that opinion. In fact, I largely agree. But deletion policy indicates that that's a reason to edit the page to correct the POV, not to delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll just have to agree to disagree. My primary objection is coatrack, but I also do believe there is a WP:SYNTH issue and no matter how many papers use the term, synth can still occur and I believe it has occurred here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's fine, we agree to disagree. Obviously, editors on both sides feel strongly and sincerely. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll address one of your points, since I made it rather poorly the first time and you raise a valid objection. About the "linking them all where no one else has done so": the policy violation I meant to point out was WP:SYNTH. ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.") If a scholarly work actually addressed Ian Paisley, the Albigensian Crusade, Eric Robert Rudolph and Cromwell together under the heading of "Christian violence", or "violence by Christians", or some such, then this would be a valid topic. But what's actually happened is that User:Robert Tyson has taken those, put them all together, and manufactured this "topic" without a scholarly framework to support his contentions, and to support linking them. (Which is also why treating these separately is preferable: precisely because no one has covered them at once.) That violates policy, and is what I meant to write earlier. - Biruitorul Talk 03:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad, apparently there is an actual policy against PoV forking: WP:POVFORK. But in fact, the essay WP:COAT, the nomination itself, seconds of the nomination, and more nominations and seconding of nominations in more AfDs than I really care to think about, all violate WP:POVFORK thusly: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it." Anarchangel (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThere are no Wikipedia rule violations here. WP:COATRACK is an essay; it is not required to be a guideline, as content that is contrary to its recommendations may be altered without removal of the article in order that the article adhere to the real rule behind it, WP:NPOV. Secondly, why is it "preferable to treat each notable instance as a discrete topic"? And, is not objecting to "linking them all where no one else has done so" invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST? Neither of these latter considerations are WP rules; inclusion as essays would be required for them to be even considered as modifiers of content in an article, let alone reason for deletion of an entire article. Anarchangel (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Absolutely a WP:COATRACK. Stinks of POV pushing. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question it all you want. A POV is allowed in an AfD discussion, not in articles. Owned. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete being a coatrack really isn't much of a reason to delete, but removing the coatrack would leave nothing and the sourcing is pretty vague as well. Tavix | Talk 16:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Extremism#Religious extremismKMFDM FAN (talk!) 16:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? The redirected target makes no mention of Christian violence, just extremism in general with regards to religion. Tavix | Talk 16:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Religious violence#Christian terrorism or Christian terrorism would be more appropriate. Algebraist 19:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Split Out This is a bunch of different articles which belong in a category, masquerading as an article. I don't see any reason why this should be deleted outright--there are lots of good references there--but the coatrack issue should be best dealt with by splitting the content out: Merging what can be merged into existing articles, creating new articles if those don't exist, and deleting content that is unsourced and unsalvageable. Jclemens (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Niteshift36. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The nom is a self-declared Eastern Orthodox (see his users page), hence we have a WP:COI. Also, the page is plenty referenced, and contains useful systematized information. -- Dandv (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I take great umbrage at the insinuation that my own religious beliefs have any bearing on the nomination - I didn't say so, and you are not to read into my motivations. Please assume good faith, and withdraw your attack on me (and on Niteshift36).
- Also, see WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Isn't this doing just that - combining multiple POVs to advance the notion that disparate events are all symptomatic of "Christian terrorism"? - Biruitorul Talk 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's ok Biruitorul, his attacks just push it closer to looking like WP:ADVOCATE on his part. As I pointed out above, it is perfectly acceptable to have a POV in an AfD, as long as you support it with policy. His petty attacks do nothing to change the fact that the article, which is not allowed to be POV, does nothing but push a POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you suggesting that religious people should not contribute to articles/discussions on religious subject? Sure, non-religious people are so much more neutral in this... :D Your comment also violates AGF, NPA and some other policies. Please discuss content, not editors. EOT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We could do with an article on views of violence in Christian theology (other than Christian pacifism, which covers only one strand of thought). Could this become such a thing, once the grab-bag of examples is removed? Algebraist 19:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with the nominator's sentiment that "it seems preferable to treat each notable instance as a discrete topic, rather than linking them all where no one else has done so", but at a minimum, we should have a list of Wikipedia articles about such instances. We have a category called "Christian terrorism", as well as "Islamic terrorism" and "Jewish terrorism". A well-sourced article is something to be encouraged on Wikipedia, while POV problems can be fixed-- without scrapping the article. I'm a Christian, and although Jesus would not have condoned violence, there's no denying that there are people who invoke His name as an excuse for murder and mayhem. Mandsford (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But we do have an article called Christian terrorism (much of which this replicates) - surely the two concepts are close enough that we can delete one of them? I actually wouldn't mind keeping that article, provided someone has discussed that topic as such and we do the same, and it didn't turn into a grab-bag like this one. - Biruitorul Talk 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or move to Christianity and violence. Much of this article can be split out or merged elsewhere. A comprehensive list of specific events and people related to Christian violence is too large to be maintainable, and belongs in Category:Christianity-related controversies or a subcategory instead. This article should be more like Christian pacifism, which does not list all pacifist acts by Christians in history but instead focuses on the debate within the Christian community. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - could I also point out that much, if not all, of this is a likely copyvio? Search for any bit of text within it, and you'll find it elsewhere on the Internet. Eg: [30], [31], [32], [33]. Based on what sites this stuff is on, my theory is that it used to be on Wikipedia under another title, but was subsequently deleted. - Biruitorul Talk 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep -- This article is excellent. I can't believe it is being nominated for deletion. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ILIKEIT - you need an actual reason for keeping. - Biruitorul Talk 03:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about articles critical of Christianity are in special need of protection because some religious believers can't handle even the least amount of criticism. Preserving it is the scholarly, and intellectual position to take. Your stated reason:Coatrack is actually not a reason to delete it there Bir. Please! This article could also be the basis of several supporting articles. Deleting it is insane. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you honestly think that response sounds reasoned and unbiased? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I'll bite. WHAT about my response does not "sound reasoned and unbiased?" I am pretty sure my reasoning is unbiased, and reasonable and yours is the biased one. Say listen, I mainly concentrate on articles in the logic department, so you are seriously barking up the wrong tree.
- Do you want to avoid an article about Christian violence? There is a simple way to do it! DON'T have a two thousand year history of violence! The only nation which became Christian without bloodshed is Iceland. With such a history, I would say that the absence of an account of Christian violence could only be the work of Christian apologists (i.e. you are the one POV pushing).Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First, let me start by saying that your "resume" about concentrating on articles in the logic department doesn't impress or intimidate me. In fact, the only reason I can see for you to even mention it is an attempt to try to intimidate. Maybe I'm wrong and you'll clarify it, but I really don't see how and whether you intended it or not, that's how it came across. Now, on to your question. What part sounds biased and unreasonable? That's simple..... your broad stereotyping that implies that people who oppose the keep are weak and think there needs to have "special protection". That smacks of bias and arrogance, which contributed to my reading your completely uncalled for CV recitation about editing logic dept. articles as an arrogant attempt to intimidate. Again, I may be wrong and feel free to clarify it if I am. To continue, you set your position up as the only correct one, while implying that those who disagree are inferior. For example, you said "Preserving it is the scholarly, and intellectual position to take" The unspoken inference then is that anyone who disagrees must be lacking in intellect. In effect, you set yourself up as being the arbitor of what is scholarly and intellectual and decided that anyone who doesn't see it your way is lacking in those areas. You also said "Deleting it is insane", this implying that anyone who disagrees with your keep must be mentally ill or deficient. Afterwards, you said "With such a history, I would say that the absence of an account of Christian violence could only be the work of Christian apologists (i.e. you are the one POV pushing)". This statement again implies that people who oppose you are "apologists" and POV pushing. However, it completely ignores that fact that not only do a number of articles about the topic already exist, but have been mentioned here by the people you claim are trying to cover it up. Despite your false premise, nobody here has suggested the suppression of information about violence committed in the name of Christianity. Nobody is trying to delete those more focused articles. What HAS been suggested it that this article is a hodge-podge of different events thrown into a mix and attempting to make this article that attempts to be all encompassing and ends up being WP:SYNTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two points. First, while WP:COATRACK is indeed an essay, WP:SYNTH is an official policy; in case you missed my argument around that policy, see here. Second, we get it that you have an unfavourable view of Christianity. But we need actual sources discussing "Christian violence" as such, and covering all the supposed instances of this phenomenon that the article gives, in order to conform to policy. We can't just make up topics, and at this point, the topic itself is still fictitious. - Biruitorul Talk 18:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has 153 references including CNN, New York Times, Federation of American Scientists and many many other reliable sources. The facts are objective. What claim of "original research" do you have at all? Give examples of claims which you believe are OR, and deal with the article's claims case by case. Your proposal is not justified AT ALL. You're claim that the topic is fictitious is ridiculous, and an abject denial of plain reality. This article is a wonderful foundation for the evolution of other articles as well (See:Wikipedia:WikiProject Integration).Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, let's walk through this more slowly. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Now, no one here is disputing the reliability of the Times or CNN or the Telegraph. No one is disputing the notability or the verifiability of Eric Robert Rudolph, Russian National Unity or the Nagaland Rebels. No one is disputing that every phenomenon described in the article has some link, weak or strong, to Christianity. What is being disputed is the linking of some two dozen often totally disparate phenomena occurring across some 17 centuries under the heading of "Christian violence" - a linking that no reliable, peer-reviewed source has actually done. That is the policy violation - bits of information, covered in entirely adequate form in their own articles (as they should be), are strung together in order to advance the position that they all are reflective of a phenomenon called "Christian violence" - when no one else has done so. - Biruitorul Talk 21:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that this article as a whole does not make conclusions. It states which religious groups have used violence, and where and when this occurred. Any of the sources may have any number of conclusions, but they all show that there is at least one religious group that has used violence. Is there another conclusion that you suggest this article is making, or do you feel any of the sources do not reach this conclusion? Anarchangel (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This appears to be a surmountable POV problem; it's not like there aren't any better sources the article could use. I just ran a Google search and found a few good sources on the topic in general - this one in particular covers the topic in the same way this article should. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is worth pointing out that the sources might bear closer scrutiny. The first one, for example, is about Christian Faith and Violence. Nowhere does it say it is about Christian violence. When I see that title, I think of a book about how Christianity views violence. I might be wrong, but I might not be. Trying to use it as evidence of anything without knowing what it says doesn't fly. The second source seems like it might be balanced on first glance. The contents look like it addresses not just violence committed by Christians, but against Christians as well. The third one has a chapter titled Christian Realism in the Face of Violence. Without reading it, we have no clue whether that will be relevent or not. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish that was the first time I'd seen a citation with no internet link. Here's a tool that may help: Google Books (of course, if the book is not previewable, it won't help much unless you're really good at guessing text or have endless time on your hands). Whenever possible, I try and make my citations web-accessible. Note that violence against Christians by Christians falls under the purview of this article; also the opposition to violence by Christians. Anarchangel (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Scroll down to the review for that last one, that gives a better synopsis of the book. I don't see an issue with covering the Christian faith and violence with the first source; I think an article about Christian views on violence (as lightly addressed at the start of the article) would be preferable to the indiscriminate list of Christian-related events/people we've got right now. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did read the review and it gives us an idea, but we can't be sure what it actually says or how in depth it covers it, so using it as a source wouldn't be prudent. I do agree with you that an article like you suggested would be preferable. That would make much more sense and be easier to keep NPOV. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, let's walk through this more slowly. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Now, no one here is disputing the reliability of the Times or CNN or the Telegraph. No one is disputing the notability or the verifiability of Eric Robert Rudolph, Russian National Unity or the Nagaland Rebels. No one is disputing that every phenomenon described in the article has some link, weak or strong, to Christianity. What is being disputed is the linking of some two dozen often totally disparate phenomena occurring across some 17 centuries under the heading of "Christian violence" - a linking that no reliable, peer-reviewed source has actually done. That is the policy violation - bits of information, covered in entirely adequate form in their own articles (as they should be), are strung together in order to advance the position that they all are reflective of a phenomenon called "Christian violence" - when no one else has done so. - Biruitorul Talk 21:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has 153 references including CNN, New York Times, Federation of American Scientists and many many other reliable sources. The facts are objective. What claim of "original research" do you have at all? Give examples of claims which you believe are OR, and deal with the article's claims case by case. Your proposal is not justified AT ALL. You're claim that the topic is fictitious is ridiculous, and an abject denial of plain reality. This article is a wonderful foundation for the evolution of other articles as well (See:Wikipedia:WikiProject Integration).Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete and userfy or merge with more notable, better documented and researched topics. Violence committed in the name of Christian relgion is notable, but the article currently is a synthesis of articles like Abortion-related violence. In other words, it looks like an attack article on Christianity, instead of a neutral and encyclopedic treatment of the subject. Until this is addressed, this should be, at best, userfied or merged. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. And how about Hindusim violence and Muslim violence? Should we create such articles? Even Pat Robertson has been described as a terrorist here. Looks like WP:SOAP classic.Biophys (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the extent to which violence is justifiable is an important part of those religions, then I think covering that would be appropriate. There's already a decent Islam and domestic violence article; this one should have similarly encyclopedic coverage and ditch the POV-pushing list of aggressors. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This appears to be a grab-bag WP:SYN article, and I don't see it improving from that status. There is an underlying assumption here that any act of violence committed by a self-described Christian group is 'Christian violence'- in a lot of these cases, we are talking about widely divergent political, ethnic, and religious conflicts that have in common the involvement of a Christian group, but which may otherwise have little in common. There are more narrowly focused articles about the relationship between Christianity and violence that would be appropriate under a different title, but I don't see this article getting out of OR/SYN territory. --Clay Collier (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but truncate heavily and rewrite. Despite the article creator's clear POV intent (see the edit summary for the initial edit), the topic has encyclopedic potential and the first section definitely has potential. There is a valid point that there is a contradiction between "turn the other cheek" and the willingness of some Christians to be violent for religious purposes. This should be presented in an encyclopedic, NPOV way. The laundry list of examples of Christian violence is, however, just a POV COATRACK and has to go. Moving it to Christianity and violence is a good idea, too. --Richard (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How do you define Christian violence? Also can Jesus being crucified be added to the list? --71.59.18.236 (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - While there is potentially a reasonable topic regarding how violence can be and sometimes is justified and acceptable within Christianity, much of that material is already included in Just war and related articles. Changing the content to a List of episodes of violence related to Christianity would quickly spiral out of control, and be of at best dubious use anyway. Also, at least to my eyes, the topic is so poorly defined as to make determining what should and should not be included at best problematic. Deletion of the existing article, and if so desired later creation of one or more articles with a slightly more reasonable scope, would probably be the best way to go here. John Carter (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is also some ambiguity in the criteria here. Just because someone calls themselves a "Christian" or subscribes to a particular tenent of Christianity doesn't make them a Christian, nor does it mean that it is the consensus view of other Christians. Even within Christianity, there are groups that are considered by most Christians to be WP:FRINGE groups. If someone goes in an massacres a grade school and says that God told him to do it, the author might list it here, but does it get mentioned that Christians roundly denounced it or that the psychiatrists said that the guy was a schizo? There is a lack of balance here that eliminate the NPOV. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of these comments are good ones. Without neutral criteria established by outside scholarly sources on what constitutes "Christian violence", a broad swath of Western criminals over the past 2000 years could be considered perpetrators of "Christian violence" - they were (nominally) Christians, they committed acts of violence, ergo they belong under "Christian violence". Shall we include Karla Faye Tucker? Ruth Ellis? Jean Bastien-Thiry? Why? Why not? In the absence of outside sources linking anyone to a broad notion of "Christian violence", neither "why?" nor "why not?" has a tenable answer. - Biruitorul Talk 18:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (but revise, and rename as "Christianity and violence"). The solution here is not to delete the page. Certainly, it is reasonable to edit it for NPOV, so as not to be an attack page. Although I understand the coatrack reasoning, I think that there is a danger that splitting into multiple pages may actually end up just being deletion of validly-sourced material -- we need to be just as careful of "I don't like it [the page]" as of "I like it."
But merging into Christian terrorism, as described above, may be a good solution.--Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)(Title change and strikethrough added subsequently. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC))[reply] - Keep two question to answer... is the topic notable... yes... are there enough verifiable sources to support it in the world... yes. last question that carries for most articles on wikipedia... does it need some sort of repair or cleanup? yes.... but that's not a reason for deletion.--Buridan (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The big problem is the term itself, and the minimal definition of the lede which seemingly makes this article the coatrack that it is. The question is whether there is any way to create a better definition or not, and, given the nature of this term, I sincerely doubt that there is, and, if true, I doubt there is any way to keep this article from being, basically, an almost random mishmash of often unrelated events. Turning it into a dab page, perhaps to articles relating to the history of violence of and against various Christian groups, related philosophical concepts, and similar related concepts, might be a workable option, if such articles exist, I don't know. But the term, and its definition, basically to my eyes make it seemingly impossible to create a reasonable single article. The term could be transwikied to wiktionary, but I can't see any way to define the term which could create anything like a reasonable encyclopedia article. A group of articles, maybe, but not a single article. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to reply to the first sentence of that comment, while keeping in mind my own comment above. I recognize that the title of the page is, indeed, central to what some editors here find problematic. I'm concerned, however, that what that really means is that some editors just don't like the subject, and would rather not see it covered, and are raising objections (such as coatrack) that only marginally apply to the page, and elevating those objection to fatal flaws that cannot be fixed by a conventional edit for NPOV. The fact is that much of the page is well-sourced according to policy here, and we need to be careful that we are not censoring. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking personally, I have nothing against the subject. One or more articles on how Christians have used the Bible and quotes from it to justify violence might work. I'm here assuming that most of the arguments are in some way biblically based. Similar articles for Judaism, Islam and the Koran, etc., etc., would probably work as well. But the title/current definition of the article isn't something I can ever see a reasonable article arising from. Wouldn't object to including relevant material in the Christian terrorism article or other articles as appropriate. Wouldn't object to seeing a dab or category or whatever relating to Christian violence. But "Christian" and "violence" are both such broad terms that, without some sort of attempt to limit the scope of the article, I can't see how there could be a real article of any useful kind. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I should clarify, myself, that I didn't mean my comment to be directed personally to you; sorry it came out that way. But, thinking about the possible Christian terrorism merge, is "violence" really a problem in a way that "terrorism" is not? If an act of violence does not rise to the legal (or dictionary) definition of terrorism, does that make it unencylcopedic? Is it really not possible to appropriately limit the scope of this article? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't take it personally, don't worry about that. Regarding the question, though, I really can't see how it could be limited. Rape, Child abuse, Mortification of the flesh, Domestic violence, assault, torture, suicide, are all forms of violence, and the list goes on. As long as the term "violence" is included in the definition, I can't see how there would be any way to reasonably keep any of these things out. If there were a specific definition which could be reliably sourced which itself limited the scope of the article, maybe then it could be limited, but without it I can't see how. Terrorism has a much more specific current definition which delimits its scope in a way that "violence" does not. Changing the article to Christian interpersonal violence or any number of other options would help limit it, but without a more specific sourced definition I can't see how we could fairly exclude any of the things I mentioned above, or any number of other subjects. John Carter (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I should clarify, myself, that I didn't mean my comment to be directed personally to you; sorry it came out that way. But, thinking about the possible Christian terrorism merge, is "violence" really a problem in a way that "terrorism" is not? If an act of violence does not rise to the legal (or dictionary) definition of terrorism, does that make it unencylcopedic? Is it really not possible to appropriately limit the scope of this article? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tryptofish, I reject the premise of your statement. We already have article on Christian Identity, on the Army of God, on Aryan Nations, on the Christian Patriot movement, on the Ku Klux Klan, on The Lambs of Christ... shall I go on? We have Category:Christian terrorism, Christian terrorism, Category:Religiously motivated violence by country, and so on. So talk of "censorship" is misplaced. We already do cover extensively the violence committed by Christian groups - as well we should. The crux of the matter, the fatal flaw (so to speak) is that the sourcing is for particular phenomena (in themselves notable) - but does not describe the phenomenon which the article supposedly is about, "Christian terrorism". - Biruitorul Talk 21:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to reply to both of you here. To Biruitorul, I think the fact that those other pages exist does not really answer the question. (One could actually argue that deletion of this page in deference to the existence of those other pages is forking.) The first section of this page, about the theoretical justification, does provide sourced reasons for treating the subject as a phenomenon (although it still needs fixing for NPOV). Where you commented to another editor, higher up on this talk, that there is no sourcing for tying together the components of the page, there actually is such sourcing in that section. There is no logical need for every instance cited in the page to have arisen from exactly the same motivation (and, again, I'm not disputing the need to fix the present version of the page). To John Carter, I think it is clear that the page is not (or should not be) about the kind of violence involved in mortification of (one's own) flesh, nor should it claim that suicide by a Christian falls within the scope of the page, since that kind of violence is obviously not an outgrowth of Christian thought or belief. One doesn't need to limit the name of the page (interpersonal, etc.) to make possible this common sense understanding of what the subject of the page is. I agree with you that there is a need for writing the page better, to base the definition on sources (as well as to make clearer that violence is not an automatic or constant characteristic of the religion), but the first section of the page does have the basis for doing that. Shorten the page, yes, but delete it all, no. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is a very strong tendency in Christianity toward mortification of the flesh, including some people in I think New Mexico who have gone so far as to crucify people. I'm not sure whether they used nails or not at this point. See Penitentes (New Mexico). And I agree it shouldn't have to include such information, but I have trouble seeing how, with the existing title and definition, it really could be excluded without someone possibly successfully challenging it down the line. And, like I said, turning it into a disambiguation page or similar for "Violence in Foo" (Foo being a period or Christian history, or Christian denomination, or whatever) wouldn't be objectionable, and include material in various subarticles, but I do have to think that the only part of the title or definition which can be limited is the "Christian" part, although other terms could be added to create for instance Biblical quotes used to justify violence in Christianity, and that maybe that might be the way we have to go. I wouldn't approve of any loss of information either, but that's a different matter. The material could be userfy'ed or otherwise temporarily stored until its transferred into a relevant article which might be linkable through a dab page. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a very strong tendency towards "mortification of the flesh" in human nature, although that particular phrase/description of the phenomenon is particular to Catholicism. But any comparative cross cultural study shows that the same thing is present in many non-Christian societies. The fact that some crazies in New Mexico crucified some people is pretty much irrelevant here - if you take a large enough sample of the human species (and Christians do constitute such a sample), you will wind up, through probability alone, picking up some crazies. There've been Buddhists who've "gone so far as to crucify people". Or any other group that is defined in broad enough terms to include a substantial number of people, have done similar things. I don't see the reason for the argument, and for the article. Sure, there is a reason for some other articles based on subsections of this one (that don't duplicate other ones). But there's no reason for a coatrack.radek (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean that there isn't a tendency towards mortification, but, rather, that it is obviously not the kind of violence that this page is (or should be) about. And, while it is pretty much built into the wiki way of editing that eventually someone will challenge a reasonable demarcation of subject matter and try to introduce something that does not belong, it is also built in that their challenge can be replied to, and need not be successful. With respect to temporarily storing the material, I'm concerned that there really isn't a plan for what "relevant article" it would eventually go into. It could just as well be "temporarily stored" right here on this page, pending editing the page to improve NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is a very strong tendency in Christianity toward mortification of the flesh, including some people in I think New Mexico who have gone so far as to crucify people. I'm not sure whether they used nails or not at this point. See Penitentes (New Mexico). And I agree it shouldn't have to include such information, but I have trouble seeing how, with the existing title and definition, it really could be excluded without someone possibly successfully challenging it down the line. And, like I said, turning it into a disambiguation page or similar for "Violence in Foo" (Foo being a period or Christian history, or Christian denomination, or whatever) wouldn't be objectionable, and include material in various subarticles, but I do have to think that the only part of the title or definition which can be limited is the "Christian" part, although other terms could be added to create for instance Biblical quotes used to justify violence in Christianity, and that maybe that might be the way we have to go. I wouldn't approve of any loss of information either, but that's a different matter. The material could be userfy'ed or otherwise temporarily stored until its transferred into a relevant article which might be linkable through a dab page. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to reply to both of you here. To Biruitorul, I think the fact that those other pages exist does not really answer the question. (One could actually argue that deletion of this page in deference to the existence of those other pages is forking.) The first section of this page, about the theoretical justification, does provide sourced reasons for treating the subject as a phenomenon (although it still needs fixing for NPOV). Where you commented to another editor, higher up on this talk, that there is no sourcing for tying together the components of the page, there actually is such sourcing in that section. There is no logical need for every instance cited in the page to have arisen from exactly the same motivation (and, again, I'm not disputing the need to fix the present version of the page). To John Carter, I think it is clear that the page is not (or should not be) about the kind of violence involved in mortification of (one's own) flesh, nor should it claim that suicide by a Christian falls within the scope of the page, since that kind of violence is obviously not an outgrowth of Christian thought or belief. One doesn't need to limit the name of the page (interpersonal, etc.) to make possible this common sense understanding of what the subject of the page is. I agree with you that there is a need for writing the page better, to base the definition on sources (as well as to make clearer that violence is not an automatic or constant characteristic of the religion), but the first section of the page does have the basis for doing that. Shorten the page, yes, but delete it all, no. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking personally, I have nothing against the subject. One or more articles on how Christians have used the Bible and quotes from it to justify violence might work. I'm here assuming that most of the arguments are in some way biblically based. Similar articles for Judaism, Islam and the Koran, etc., etc., would probably work as well. But the title/current definition of the article isn't something I can ever see a reasonable article arising from. Wouldn't object to including relevant material in the Christian terrorism article or other articles as appropriate. Wouldn't object to seeing a dab or category or whatever relating to Christian violence. But "Christian" and "violence" are both such broad terms that, without some sort of attempt to limit the scope of the article, I can't see how there could be a real article of any useful kind. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tryptofish, I agree with your last comment to me, but only in part. Let me start with the disagreement. The laundry-list items (Rexism, etc) are all or almost all notable phenomena about which much has been written, including books. So not mentioning them here (other than maybe in passing) but leaving them to their own articles is not a case of forking. We have, for instance, an article on North America that says rather little about the United States, Canada and Mexico; those too are covered independently and are not forks.
- On the other hand, yes, there is scholarly literature (plenty of it, in fact) about Christianity and violence - war, mayhem, modern, ancient, Catholic, Protestant, pacifism, militarism. E.g. [34], [35], [36], [37]. Can a coherent article be constructed around a theoretical (and, for reasons enumerated before, it should be largely theoretical) discussion of this topic? Could be. If we retitle this, possibly merge with Christian terrorism and cut off any revamped version prior to "Acts of violence by Christians", then we may have the seeds of something worth salvaging. - Biruitorul Talk 00:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to reply to the first sentence of that comment, while keeping in mind my own comment above. I recognize that the title of the page is, indeed, central to what some editors here find problematic. I'm concerned, however, that what that really means is that some editors just don't like the subject, and would rather not see it covered, and are raising objections (such as coatrack) that only marginally apply to the page, and elevating those objection to fatal flaws that cannot be fixed by a conventional edit for NPOV. The fact is that much of the page is well-sourced according to policy here, and we need to be careful that we are not censoring. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some observations: (1) The editor who started this article did so with the note: "New article like Anti-Christian violence in India, Anti-Christian violence in Karnataka, September 2008 attacks on Christians in Mangalore, 2005 Indonesian beheadings of Christian girls." There is, however, a significant difference between Christian violence and the articles Mr. Tyson refers to. Christian violence contains a collect of information including biographies, accounts of specific events, and descriptions of organizations among other things; in contrast, each of the articles listed by Mr. Tyson treat situations or events limited by geography or time or both. (2) As another editor noted above, many of the topics treated in Christian violence already have their own article on Wikipedia. Some topics ( Army of God (USA) for instance) are treated at greater length in this article then they are in their own articles. Other sections cover topics (those on Billy Wright and Eric Robert Rudolph for instance) that are already covered by major articles on Wikipedia. There are some topics that are not covered by independent articles (e.g. the 1988 Paris theatre burning and "Theological justifications of Christian violence") which seem to be significant enough to merit an independent article. (3) It is not clear which source or sources cited in this article is/are supposed to support the grouping of these topics into one article.Fixer1234 (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's a pov coatrack, it's synth, it's a copyvio. Whatever's good in it is already in Christian terrorism. I actually can't believe that some editors are using the fact that the nominator is of some particular religion as a reason to vote against deletion! While they themselves proudly display "Atheist" and similar info boxes on their user pages. Well, I've got neither a "this user is of religion X" nor a "this user is an atheist with a serious insecurity complex" infobox on mine which means that I don't have a "conflict of interest" (apparently CoI doesn't apply to atheists) here. I'm actually not religious. But the article should be deleted simply because it violates several Wikipedia policies - coatrack, synth, copyvio, pov - without adding any benefit to the overall project. It should be deleted because it sucks, not because somebody somewhere is of some religion or is not of some non-religion religion.radek (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite as Biruitorul suggests. The current article is unacceptable: greatly over-emphasizes Catholic violence against Protestants in Ireland. The secondary emphasis seems to be the KKK, probably not an example of specificially christian violence. DGG (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete on the grounds that the topic is overbroad, and that, therefore, any actual article content is going to be selective, incomplete, and probably POV. Christianity is a movement spanning 2000 years, hundreds of countries, and billions of people. For approximately 1000 years of European history, both sides of any conflict routinely proclaimed themselves the defenders of Christianity. Where do we stop with what we define as "Christian violence"? I don't see any particularly good way. E.g. was World War II an example of "Christian violence"? From the Allied side, arguably yes: all of the major denominations in the US and the UK supported it, they sent chaplains to accompany armies into battle, etc. (And yet, the article, in its current form, cites the Aryan Nation as an example of "Christian violence" - if we accept the fact that "Christian violence" exists, why would we possibly say that the Aryan Nation is a better representative of "Christian violence" than the Christian churches that preached against fascism during World War II? I think this illustrates the impossibility of addressing this topic in a POV way, which is why I think the article shouldn't exist.) My general impression is that someone recently read Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins and felt to need to push the "Christianity = violence" meme on Wikipedia. And, as I think almost everyone would agree, even if Wikipedia were to have a page on "Christian violence", the article in its current form is awful. Heck, I doubt even the Hitchens-Dawkins crowd would be happy with an article that neglected the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, or the European wars of religion. And the article as is is riddled with some of the most NPOV crap I can imagine: e.g. that the Ku Klux Klan was "strongly influenced" by Christian Reconstructionism, a minor movement within American Reformed theology in the 1970s, which didn't exist until decades after the heyday of the Klan. Adam_sk (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sacagawea! No one here, and nothing in the article, is suggesting that perpetrators of violence who are Christian are 'representative' of Christianity, merely that they perpetrate violence, and that they are Christian. See my reply to Niteshift: I welcome the addition of a section that introduces Christians who oppose violence such as "the Christian churches that preached against fascism during World War II". Anarchangel (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say that "the Christian churches that preached against fascism during World War II" opposed violence - quite the opposite, they pretty much all supported armed opposition to fascism. My point is rather that "Christian violence" is an overly broad topic and that any treatment of the topic that encompasses less than the vast majority of western civilization over the past 1500-2000 years is going to be POV insofar as it singles out specific examples of "Christian violence" while passing over others. Adam_sk (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sacagawea! No one here, and nothing in the article, is suggesting that perpetrators of violence who are Christian are 'representative' of Christianity, merely that they perpetrate violence, and that they are Christian. See my reply to Niteshift: I welcome the addition of a section that introduces Christians who oppose violence such as "the Christian churches that preached against fascism during World War II". Anarchangel (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but split. There is a lot of referenced information in the article. Deletion risks giving the impression of systemic bias against "christian negative" articles within WP, and would mean throwing away a lot of referenced information. Far better to have an overview article about the concept and have all of the substantive content on specific events and places arranged into a series of suitable articles. Obviously, many of these articles already exist, so much of the content here needs to be sorted and moved, with duplication being deleted. --Athol Mullen (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Very few of the sources actually cover Christian violence as such, but rather cover instances in which Christians have been violent. The bulk of this article violates WP:SYNTH. There could plausibly be a neutral, encyclopedic article written on this subject, but it needs to be much better defined than in the present article, and its core material must be based on sources that cover Christian violence as such. If such an article were to be created, Christianity and violence would be a better, less POVish title. Nick Graves (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As someone who favors keeping, I want to agree, in part, that renaming to "Christianity and violence" would be a big improvement over the present title. Good point! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article is a classic example of original research via synthesis. If it's kept, I look forward to similar articles on Muslim violence, Jewish violence, Atheist violence, and so on. *** Crotalus *** 16:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep.
- As pointed out above, Wikipedia already has Islam and domestic violence - so there is no prohibition (coatrack or otherwise) on writing about a particular religion and violence. It is a valid topic.
- No Merge with Christian Terrorism - because violence is not the same thing as terrorism. Josh Keen (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:SYN, although some of the content of this article may be useful in other articles. Majoreditor (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The story thus far:
- Biruitorul: "no one has connected these topics before"
- (-A-): that's WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST
- Biruitorul: I meant WP:SYNTH
- (-A-): evidence it isn't synth
- Clay Collier: (inverting the argument again) "what source has actually asserted such a connection?"
- I offer the following book as an example of how such examples are connected in scholarly works: Terror in the Mind of God By Mark Juergensmeyer. Anarchangel (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the consideration of violence that uses a Judeo-Christian perspective to discuss multiple cases of Christian and other religions' violence, and possible solutions: Between Eden and Armageddon, by Marc Gopin. Anarchangel (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again you ignore that fact that just because someone has written about the topic, trying to combine all the possible angles to show a POV is SYNTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Textbook projection. You may peddle your conspiracy theories as you please, Shifty, but I ain't buyin'. You only get about four chances with me to keep credibility, and you have entirely blown your allowance. We won't be conversing again. Anarchangel (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, thank you for throwing AGF out the window. That last response had zero to do with the discussion about the article and was solely a commentary on me. Second, I don't have a conspiracy theory to peddle. Since you appear to be intelligent enough to read, I will have to presume that you just didn't bother. I've said, more than once, that this one article would be better suited by a couple of more focused articles. What sane person would think that suggestion is somehow a conspiracy theory or an attempt to supress the information? I've made no attempt to supress the info or claimed any conspiracy. I've simply stated, all along, that this article tries to cover too many things at once and that it has a POV issue. Even some of those voting keep recognize the POV issue. But where you arrive at this "conspiracy theory" bull is beyond me. And don't think I'm going to lose a seconds sleep over the fact that you have conjured up some weird allegation in your head and no longer find me credible. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes- I'm not denying that authors have analyzed the connection between religion (and specifically Christianity) and violence, or that they may select specific examples in the course of doing so. I want to know what the criteria is for inclusion/exclusion in this particular article. Something like the Juergensmeyer book lined above selects specific incidents from the history of religious violence in order to support the author's thesis. There's an analytic perspective that determines what is included, and how the evidence is discussed. What is the connection among the various topics that are being discussed in this article? Is there any unambiguous definition from a reliable source that tells us what is or isn't 'Christian Violence' and what should be included under that topic? Does it include intra-religious violence? Should it only include violence that is aimed at forcing compliance with an interpretation of Christian doctrine (such as anti-abortion violence)? Is any notable act of violence committed by someone professing Christianity to be included? Is a geopolitical conflict always Christian violence if one side in the conflict identifies itself with as Christian, or is historically Christian? I don't think there is a single standard that will settle all of these questions; thus I think the article would be better suited to being the title of a category that included specialized articles such as 'Intra-Christian Violence', 'Justifications for Violence in Christianity', etc. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Following the question marks from top to bottom: Christians who commit violence. Common sense should suffice. Yes. No. Yes. Only if there is a notable influence on the course of the conflict by a notable element that is Christian in nature (if a political leader were to use a line from a religious text as an argument for war, it might be worth a line. The leader's denomination wouldn't be, nor that of any number of troops.) Ideally I would like to see the article shift away from examples and into prose, but that entirely depends on the availability of cites. Anarchangel (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The extent of this discussion should make it clear that 'common sense' doesn't suffice. To me, it defies common sense that someone would think that the Karen Army of God has something to do with Eric Rudolph and the Albigensian Crusade because they were all nominally Christian. It's like saying that we should discuss Johnny Rotten and King John I in the same article because they are both named John and from England. I'm sure they're both listed in an article on 'British Bad boys' together somewhere. There are a lot of perfectly valid articles about the relationship between specific forms of Christianity and specific forms of violence that could be written. This topic is just too broadly construed to provide meaningful insight. If any Christian who commits violence is to be included, we're talking about adding in James Earl Ray and John Wilkes Booth. For that matter, both sides in the American Civil War used Biblical language to express their perception of the morality of their cause. --Clay Collier (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Failing careful summaries of the prevailing distinctions of groups listed in the article, links to their own articles will make it impossible to confuse one of them with another. There's nothing about a religious motivation in the James Earl Ray article; I only know of political motivations for Booth. I agree that they don't belong; I would definitely be patrolling for such inclusions. Anarchangel (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They may seem silly examples, but you stated earlier that 'violence committed by Christians'- not just people motivated to commit violent acts for reasons rooted in Christian belief- should be included in the article. The Army of God, likewise, commits violence not out of some need to champion a theological position, but in response to the ethnic and land policies of the Burmese junta. Does this mean that you want the article to be something more like 'People or groups who believe that violence is justified by Christianity, and have acted on it?' I see above you are also open to adding a section about Christian opposition to violence- this seems to make the article less coherent, rather than more. I'm trying to understand what role you think this article is going to serve. What does it explain or elucidate? 'Christians sometimes commit acts of violence' is obvious and not really in need of an article, no? 'Some believe that Christianity justifies violence' is a little less obvious, but 'Justification of Violence in Christianity' seems a better title for that than 'Christian Violence'. It seems like what we really have here is not a single article, but a couple of articles (some of which already exist), and a few categories such as 'Christian Terrorists/Terrorist Groups', 'Christian Ethnic Militias', etc. Should the passion and the violence of the crucifixion be included here, given their theological significance? You say that you will patrol and keep out the groaners, but my question is this: if a new editor comes to this page, how are they to reasonably judge what would belong here? 'I'll know it when I see it' doesn't really work. I would say the same for 'Muslim Violence', 'Buddhist Violence', 'American Violence' or 'Ancient Roman Violence'- none of them are a single article, they are a dozen articles and a category. --Clay Collier (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Failing careful summaries of the prevailing distinctions of groups listed in the article, links to their own articles will make it impossible to confuse one of them with another. There's nothing about a religious motivation in the James Earl Ray article; I only know of political motivations for Booth. I agree that they don't belong; I would definitely be patrolling for such inclusions. Anarchangel (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The extent of this discussion should make it clear that 'common sense' doesn't suffice. To me, it defies common sense that someone would think that the Karen Army of God has something to do with Eric Rudolph and the Albigensian Crusade because they were all nominally Christian. It's like saying that we should discuss Johnny Rotten and King John I in the same article because they are both named John and from England. I'm sure they're both listed in an article on 'British Bad boys' together somewhere. There are a lot of perfectly valid articles about the relationship between specific forms of Christianity and specific forms of violence that could be written. This topic is just too broadly construed to provide meaningful insight. If any Christian who commits violence is to be included, we're talking about adding in James Earl Ray and John Wilkes Booth. For that matter, both sides in the American Civil War used Biblical language to express their perception of the morality of their cause. --Clay Collier (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Following the question marks from top to bottom: Christians who commit violence. Common sense should suffice. Yes. No. Yes. Only if there is a notable influence on the course of the conflict by a notable element that is Christian in nature (if a political leader were to use a line from a religious text as an argument for war, it might be worth a line. The leader's denomination wouldn't be, nor that of any number of troops.) Ideally I would like to see the article shift away from examples and into prose, but that entirely depends on the availability of cites. Anarchangel (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to acknowledge that you make an at least partly valid point that the "I'll know it when I see it" argument that some of us on the don't-delete side have made is a weak one. A better argument would be that inclusion requires citation of a secondary source relating the specific violence to Christianity -- and there is abundant evidence that such sources are going to exist. On the other hand, if we apply your argument for deletion, that a page should be deleted if there is a significant risk that future editors will have to argue about what should or should not be included on the page, as broad WP policy, we would have to delete an awful lot of pages. It's not a reason to delete. The fact is, many of the examples you cite are silly, and can be dealt with through normal editing. As for including a section on Christian opposition to violence, particularly if we rename the page to "Christianity and violence," that would improve the page a lot. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken about the 'what to include' argument- a better way for me to explain my position might be this: there are a half-dozen topics that could be discussed under the heading 'Christian Violence' because they relate the concepts of Christianity and violence in some way. None of them perfectly fit that specific title, and most would be better served by being the topic of a different article. If we are going to make 'Christian Violence' a summary article that links off to those more specific articles, my view is that most of the specific information (such as listings of violent Christian individuals, causes, or groups) should be moved out of here and into the appropriate article (such as 'Christian Terrorism', 'Christian Ethnic Militias', and 'Justification of Violence in Christianity') and the name changed to 'Christianity and Violence'. At that point, I don't see what is gained by having an article rather than a category with an appropriate category page. If we are proposing that every one of those half-dozen topics should be discussed in detail in a single article, I would say that we're steering into original synthesis by discussing what are several very loosely connected topics as though they were aspects of a single underlying phenomena, and also that such an article can't possible abide by WP:Summary Style. The topic sentence of this article currently gives a definition of what "Christian Violence" is, without offering any justification for that definition. Where does that definition come from? Are there not a lot of other perfectly valid and referenced definitions for what Christian violence constitutes? If we pick a single one or attempt to combine them, we're engaging in synthesis; if we pick all of them, we've just dumped together the contents of several articles without any rhyme or reason, and are going to run afoul of other policies as well. --Clay Collier (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are helpful comments, thank you. I guess a big part of my concern is that deleting this page in deference to setting up a lot of smaller pages may just end up as deleting valid, sourced material, without subsequently restoring it elsewhere. We all agree, I think, that the current first sentence is inadequate. However, the section that follows it is better (not great, but better), and I think that there is no longer any factual basis for assuming that there will not be any reliable sources for organizing the page. Some are cited on the page now; more have been identified in this talk. Although editors keep raising the synthesis issue, I think that it has already been refuted. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken about the 'what to include' argument- a better way for me to explain my position might be this: there are a half-dozen topics that could be discussed under the heading 'Christian Violence' because they relate the concepts of Christianity and violence in some way. None of them perfectly fit that specific title, and most would be better served by being the topic of a different article. If we are going to make 'Christian Violence' a summary article that links off to those more specific articles, my view is that most of the specific information (such as listings of violent Christian individuals, causes, or groups) should be moved out of here and into the appropriate article (such as 'Christian Terrorism', 'Christian Ethnic Militias', and 'Justification of Violence in Christianity') and the name changed to 'Christianity and Violence'. At that point, I don't see what is gained by having an article rather than a category with an appropriate category page. If we are proposing that every one of those half-dozen topics should be discussed in detail in a single article, I would say that we're steering into original synthesis by discussing what are several very loosely connected topics as though they were aspects of a single underlying phenomena, and also that such an article can't possible abide by WP:Summary Style. The topic sentence of this article currently gives a definition of what "Christian Violence" is, without offering any justification for that definition. Where does that definition come from? Are there not a lot of other perfectly valid and referenced definitions for what Christian violence constitutes? If we pick a single one or attempt to combine them, we're engaging in synthesis; if we pick all of them, we've just dumped together the contents of several articles without any rhyme or reason, and are going to run afoul of other policies as well. --Clay Collier (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to acknowledge that you make an at least partly valid point that the "I'll know it when I see it" argument that some of us on the don't-delete side have made is a weak one. A better argument would be that inclusion requires citation of a secondary source relating the specific violence to Christianity -- and there is abundant evidence that such sources are going to exist. On the other hand, if we apply your argument for deletion, that a page should be deleted if there is a significant risk that future editors will have to argue about what should or should not be included on the page, as broad WP policy, we would have to delete an awful lot of pages. It's not a reason to delete. The fact is, many of the examples you cite are silly, and can be dealt with through normal editing. As for including a section on Christian opposition to violence, particularly if we rename the page to "Christianity and violence," that would improve the page a lot. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Repeating my argument from above... the problem isn't that the topic isn't encyclopedic. The sources offered by Anarchangel suggest that it is. The problem is that this article sets out to establish a POV and the COATRACK of examples is both POV and SYNTH. Unless the POV problem is inherent in the article topic, the fix for NPOV problems is not deletion but rewriting. If this article is kept, I will undertake to get rid of the COATRACK and to rework the initial section to be more NPOV. If other editors can mine the sources for encyclopedic treatments of the topic, I think we could wind up with a quality article despite the awful version that we have now. --Richard (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all the discussion has been about the focus of the article. There are some deletions and substitutions I would like to make to the article already, having read it through once. Hopefully there will be an opportunity for more, but I won't be trying to fix it up just in time for a deletion. Anarchangel (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete essentially as *** Crotalus ***. Imo this is POV original research via synthesis.Springnuts (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...And some just blow their credibility allowance in one shot. Anarchangel (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CIVIL costs nothing and ensures that all voices are heard. Springnuts (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and actually giving a reason for your acronyms costs nothing and ensures that you aren't just making enough noise that your WP:VOTE is counted. Anarchangel (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CIVIL costs nothing and ensures that all voices are heard. Springnuts (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...And some just blow their credibility allowance in one shot. Anarchangel (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you honestly not know why he'd mention WP:CIVIL to you? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep What to say that I haven't already? The article fills a much needed gap in our perception of Christianity. In the one article, both sides of Christianity can be shown; those that promote violence, tolerate violence, and lead to violence, and those that oppose it, refuse to accept it, and work for harmony, and peace. This article is about not having to relive the past, by learning from it. Anarchangel (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What next, Christian Body Odour? Who's going to write Atheist Violence? (I know that's not an argument). It seems to be rather POV; Even the title presupposes that the violence is caused by the people because they are Christians. "Violence by People Who Might be Christians". I like how they get the Evangelical Alliance shoe-horned in because they refuse to rule out "the use of defensive force [as] a necessary and legitimate remedy for Christians" when faced with extreme persecution - so they're including people that might be violent in the future too. Who believes that the Ugandan LRA is Christian? If kept this article is going to have lists of Serial Killers quoted as saying "I follow Jesus" because they once went to an Anglican church in which that was part of the liturgy.
- Included for example are the "Sons of Freedom" based on a 1966 Time article (which doesn't mention them as anything more than "religious"). Wikipedia on the group the Doukhobor's says that they are "Spiritual Christians" and then goes on to say they rejected all Church ritual, reject the Bible and reject Jesus as God - pretty conclusively not Christian then. Do they just mean "violence by people who come from societal groups with an historically large proportion of Christian confessors"? Not a snappy title.
- Then there's "God's Army" a guerrila group of Karen people in armed opposition to the Burmese government's attempts to wipe them out. The Karen according to a wikipedia cited article "since the 19th century, combined animist, Buddhist and Christian beliefs with messianic prophets linked with salvation for their followers and reference to a ‘Golden Book’ that contains all wisdom. The Htoo twins followed this tradition with the ‘God’s Army of the Holy Mountain’ and have an almost mystical origin." The Htoo's being a couple of 9 year olds guerrilla fighters when they started "God's Army" and clearly not Christians even if they were old enough to make a mature confession of their beliefs.
- These errors are of course fixable, but all these groups already have articles in which the information is presented in a more neutral way that needs less fixing and one that is not attempting to ascribe every war or uprising as Christian Violence simply because the Western name for a group involved includes the word God. The whole Northern Ireland troubles, that has about as much to do with religious dispute as football hooligan's rioting has to do with disagreements over the interpretation of the offside rule - why add this poor attempt at covering the highly complex issues under a title that supposes the conclusions.
- Apologies if I've breached w-etiquette by posting this here. Pbhj (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No etiquette problems, although it's hard to take seriously the suggestion that those of us who favor revision over deletion would want a page on body odor. As you yourself admit, most of what you list is fixable by revision, which is a clear reason under policy not to delete the page. As for the POV issues of the phrase "Christian violence," please keep in mind the alternative of renaming the page "Christianity and violence." --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The only way in which I can personally see this article being a reasonable addition to the encyclopedia is if it were essentially a collection of quotations or other material going into detail specifically how given Christians have in the past attempted to justify actions of that specific type accompanied with perhaps links to other articles going into greater detail regarding that point, and a few sections regarding the few times when Christians specifically as Christians have been engaged in violence. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just to be clear... we would, of course, want to mention Just war theory but only in summary since there is already an article on that. The value of having this article is really to talk about (1) Christian theology regarding violence ("thou shalt not murder" BUT thou art not required to lay down and let an aggressor roll over you and thus "just war" theory") followed by (2) the fact that Christians have committed violence against both Christians and non-Christians in the name of religion. Some have even argued that Christians are a more violent lot than non-Christians. The question then is who makes such assertions and what theories are put forth to explain this, if it is in fact true. We would mention the Crusades and European wars of religion, once again in summary since there are article on those topics also. Now, some may argue that there are often secular reasons (socioeconomic and political) for wars waged purportedly in the name of religion. That's fine. Just source the arguments and we'll have a fine NPOV article. --Richard (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the sake of discussion......would you differentiate between wars fought because of actual religious reasons and ones that had a bigger underlying reasons (like gain of land or wealth) and were given a religious "cover" or facade to placate those who might not otherwise buy into the war? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Richardshusr: While I can understand your statement, I think if the article were to reflect what you have said it would have to be renamed or have the qualifiers placed in the lead. I would also have to say that I myself might object to such a delimiting. I can also see how actions which are not of the broader type you seem to be thinking of might reasonably be included in the article. My own view of the article might be something along the lines of several sections formatting along these lines:
- "Rape - Sexual activity outside of marriage is of course a violation of the ten commandments, and thus, according to Christianity, a sin. What some might call rape, and what others might call nonconsentual intercourse, within a marriage has at times been justified by Christians [if it has] on the basis of such activity being required for reproduction, because one partner, in violation of perceived views of the meaning of the marriage vows, believes that consentual intercourse has been arbitrarily limited or eliminated by the other party, in violation of those vows, or to ensure that the unwilling spouse be behaving in accord with the Biblical demand that wives do as their husbands order. Such actions have [if true] generally been considered poorly justified, although there have been rare times [specified] when they have been viewed as acceptable. [What follows is at this point pure speculation] Rape outside of marriage has at times been argued as being defensible on the basis of getting the wive of a dead sibling with child, so she has a child to support her in her old age, to prolong the life of a woman condemned to death who would otherwise be killed earlier, or, rarely, other reasons. These reasons have rarely received much support in the Christian community, [detail when they have]."
- Other sections, similarly constructed to indicate the specific Christian beliefs and arguments to defend or condemn the main "types" of violence, however they are finally named, would be included as well. Links to other articles on the subject, as appropriate, would also be included. This would allow the article to more accurately describe the apparent subject, while at the same time probably being on of the few ways to ensure it adheres to policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that John makes some valid points about how to organize the page while revising it, which may point to some useful strategies for keeping the page in revised form. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia: No original research # Synthesis of published material that advances a position --Poeticbent talk 05:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GameScoop[edit]
- GameScoop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD (including one erroneously placed by myself due to lack of hindsight). I could not find anything that provides reliable independent coverage of this podcast to satisfy the general notability guideline or WP:WEB. All the sources listed are either from IGN itself, from Wikipedia, or otherwise unreliable sources (like Urban Dictionary). MuZemike 14:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —MuZemike 15:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very weak, invalid assertion of notability claimed, but blatently fails WP:WEB due to lack of non-trivial third party sources. - 2 ... says you, says me 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - weak evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal. Clearly no consensus to delete; consensus is slightly in favor of merging than keeping. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Wick (whistleblower)[edit]
- John Wick (whistleblower) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The subject was newly identified as being involved in a growing political scandal in May, and a biographical article created. The article was taken to AFD the same day on the grounds of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS and the result was "keep".
This was not clear-cut; there were also a significant number of users agreeing with delete/redirect in line with the nomination, but the newness of the article, the fact the event was very significant and still unfolding at that time, and the possibility that Wicks might turn out to have a more significant involvement, were factors that some users took into account at the time of the first AFD in May.
2 months have passed. The story and article are now stable, yet no other notable information has been added not any other personal basis of notability found, beyond that of a middleman between a leaker and the press. However this is covered fully and in more detail in the article on the scandal itself. At this point, it doesn't seem that any further grounds are imminently likely to emerge (WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOT cover the issue of hoped-for notability at AFD).
My own comment at the time:
- Many people play "pivotal roles" in notable incidents who themselves are not considered notable. Apart from "passed on data from person A to person B", what exactly is notable about John Wick, or is it just that he played a role in the given incident? In the context of this controversy, so far he is the delivery boy. He is not the leaker, and he was not a decision maker in the case, he was simply a go-between for a source and a recipient newspaper, a once-off minor role. If it hadn't been him, some other person would have been asked to act as go-between. In this context the person "John Wick" isn't by usual norms, notable, he could have been any person chosen by the actual leaker/source (who would be notable).
- To the extent there is information of encyclopedic interest about him, so far it can all be said in one line, perhaps two, and all pertains to the parliamentary matter.
Despite the rapidly developing events, no real basis of historical notability beyond WP:BLP1E existed for this individual at the time of the initial AFD, and despite the hopes, none has been found or added since. The article on him does not contain good material showing personal notability, but instead is a collation of the kinds of "human interest" background material that anyone in the media might have gathered - past employments, clubs he is a member of, current business activities, tabloid claims and controversies over failed businesses or debts, etc.
When all said and done, John Wick is likely to remain a classic case of WP:BLP1E for the foreseeable future, a person who played a role in one event that "could have been anyone" and is completely non-notable otherwise. At the time there might have been grounds to be wary of too-rapid deletion, but that's 2 months in the past now and nothing new has happened to give him any added grounds for notability since then.
I think it's time the article on Wicks was deleted in favor of a redirect to the article on the event, which covers the historical event, contains a short section covering everything salient about his involvement, and does so in more direct detail and better context.
FT2 (Talk | email) 14:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal. This is simply WP:BLP1E for a guy who was literally a postman no more, his role in this was very small. Also wikipedia is WP:NOT#NEWS. Martin451 (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 22:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 22:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- merge and redirect this is a classic WP:BLP1E case. Kudos to FT2 for a superb nomination statement. Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. We've not really heard anything about John Wick since the event. A lot of keep votes were based on approval for what he did, but that's not the basis for including articles in Wikipedia. As it seems unlikely this article will grow beyond the stub there is at the moment, a merge is in order. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKeepCommentkeep There is the small matter that he is director of his own company and has recieved some press coverage in this regard. Take The Times article 'The latest must-have for commercial shipowners: a piracy insurance policy' The Times 5 Dec 2008 Polargeo (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't really add or change much. Businesses and business owners are ten a penny; there needs to be some actual basis for historical notability. This isn't "significant coverage of the subject". Many businesses may well get press mentions now and then, more so if they have a PR department, or if a small article is written on some product or service offered that year; that's usual, it's "routine news coverage". Being a company offering piracy insurance doesn't much add to the company's notability unless it's likely for some reason to have historical value, nor that of its owner. (mirror link if it refuses to load, for review) FT2 (Talk | email) 12:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my comment to keep. Reliable source (very - The Times). A different event (completely - It was several months before the whistleblower thing had even started). More than a minor mention (yes significant - He is named five times; quoted at least 3 times; it gives us some biog specifically about him such as what regiments he was in and it tells us he is the founding director of the company offering this service). It is not an advert, it is there because this is an interesting story, interesting enough to be in a top national newspaper, not just a business development. Whilst I agree strongly that wikipedia is not the news and the article should not be kept on this alone it proves he is a notable individual beyond BLP1E. Therefore much as I would otherwise agree with the 1E reason this is now not 1E. Polargeo (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How does an article on a product by a company make that company's owner personally notable? Of course he'll be quoted, and of course it'll give some personal background. But it's still routine new coverage of products, services and the like offered by businesses. In the context of increased piracy an article saying "interesting news, some companies can get piracy insurance now" is still just routine news. It speaks to WP:INTERESTING for a day and WP:NOT#NEWS; not historic or encyclopedic notability. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a small point. WP:INTERESTING is not relevant because it is not what I as a wikipedian find interesting but what a top national newspaper finds interesting. It also seems to find the individual interesting enough to put some biog on him, would this be in a normal article on insurance? Polargeo (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Times says that they are "offering the world’s first insurance policy for shipowners covering potential ransom payouts on crew members who have been kidnapped." He formed the company and he puts the products out, his name gets as many mentions as the company name does in the article. This is far more than a company that he just happens to be a spokesperson for. Polargeo (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If that counts as notability, it would be for the company, not the individual who runs it. Even so, I'm not convinced that a company being the first to offer product X should be treated as notable if they are the only company who ever offers product X. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am just trying to state that in this case the individual is pretty much the same thing as the company. It is a company both founded, run and I presume (until this is checked anyway) owned by the individual concerned. This isn't some huge company that he just happens to be a director of which has notability that can be disasociated from him as an individual. He also continues to 'develop new products and services' of the company, as stated on the website. So it looks like he is the first person to come up with and implement this type of insurance. I'd say that takes him beyond BLP1E. Polargeo (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still just a product. A man wakes up one day and decide to sell a new product related to something topical in the major news media; when its available a major newspaper interviews him about it because it's topical, and writes up something briefly on his product and its vendor in its business pages. It then promptly slides back into usual product oblivion (adverts and PR pieces and the occasional mention aside). No massive follow-up, no signs the world has taken more note of it other than briefly in passing than many other products. This happens a thousand times a month and it doesn't make the product or its provider notable in an encyclopedia sense. Perhaps someone will decide we should have an article on Piracy insurance someday -- but that's a discussion for another day and this isn't it. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am just trying to state that in this case the individual is pretty much the same thing as the company. It is a company both founded, run and I presume (until this is checked anyway) owned by the individual concerned. This isn't some huge company that he just happens to be a director of which has notability that can be disasociated from him as an individual. He also continues to 'develop new products and services' of the company, as stated on the website. So it looks like he is the first person to come up with and implement this type of insurance. I'd say that takes him beyond BLP1E. Polargeo (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If that counts as notability, it would be for the company, not the individual who runs it. Even so, I'm not convinced that a company being the first to offer product X should be treated as notable if they are the only company who ever offers product X. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How does an article on a product by a company make that company's owner personally notable? Of course he'll be quoted, and of course it'll give some personal background. But it's still routine new coverage of products, services and the like offered by businesses. In the context of increased piracy an article saying "interesting news, some companies can get piracy insurance now" is still just routine news. It speaks to WP:INTERESTING for a day and WP:NOT#NEWS; not historic or encyclopedic notability. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my comment to keep. Reliable source (very - The Times). A different event (completely - It was several months before the whistleblower thing had even started). More than a minor mention (yes significant - He is named five times; quoted at least 3 times; it gives us some biog specifically about him such as what regiments he was in and it tells us he is the founding director of the company offering this service). It is not an advert, it is there because this is an interesting story, interesting enough to be in a top national newspaper, not just a business development. Whilst I agree strongly that wikipedia is not the news and the article should not be kept on this alone it proves he is a notable individual beyond BLP1E. Therefore much as I would otherwise agree with the 1E reason this is now not 1E. Polargeo (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't really add or change much. Businesses and business owners are ten a penny; there needs to be some actual basis for historical notability. This isn't "significant coverage of the subject". Many businesses may well get press mentions now and then, more so if they have a PR department, or if a small article is written on some product or service offered that year; that's usual, it's "routine news coverage". Being a company offering piracy insurance doesn't much add to the company's notability unless it's likely for some reason to have historical value, nor that of its owner. (mirror link if it refuses to load, for review) FT2 (Talk | email) 12:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed my vote (if you like) back to just a comment. I suppose this is an individual on the edge of notability for more than one thing. Although he was arguably a minor player in the expenses scandal there was significant coverage on him as an individual, okay some of it media gossip but a lot of it biog stuff that we can write an article around. Also, although I wouldn't argue an article on these alone he was an officer who rose to the rank of Major and was in the most well know speical forces regiment in the British Army. So there is a lot that can be said about this man. A lot more than can be said about many other people we have biogs on. So I don't understand the eagerness to delete the article. I think you have brought this back to AfD a little too soon FT2. Polargeo (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or keep is a community decision. As for nomination timing, when would have been better? Nothing's imminently going on, nothing's gone on for ages, nothing new seems foreseeable to come out... if something does, at that point we assess it. Basic WP:CRYSTAL really, I'd have thought. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the claim that 2 months has passed and nothing has happened with regard to John Wick or nothing has happened since the last AfD is just not true. Take 'John Wick, middleman who passed on MPs’ expenses, on why he fled the UK' The Times 12 June or 'MPs' expenses: censored files show my actions were justified, says whistleblower' The Telegraph 24 June. I wonder when his book will be published! So based on the result of the last AfD and the further stories, which can be easily found and have indeed come out about the individual concerned, this is premature to bring it back to AfD Polargeo (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry changed back to keep. If you read The Times article of 12 June there is indeed plenty of intrigue specifically about this individual. He is a conservative party fundraiser and knows Lord Ashcroft (the deputy chairman of the conservative party) socially. As the paper says 'The disclosure will raise questions among Labour MPs that the expenses leak might have been a political plot to destabilise Gordon Brown’s Government while at the same time clearing out Tory dead wood. Lord Ashcroft runs a target seats operation from within the Conservative Party’s headquarters.' This individual's part is looking bigger than it was when last brought to AfD. Polargeo (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the claim that 2 months has passed and nothing has happened with regard to John Wick or nothing has happened since the last AfD is just not true. Take 'John Wick, middleman who passed on MPs’ expenses, on why he fled the UK' The Times 12 June or 'MPs' expenses: censored files show my actions were justified, says whistleblower' The Telegraph 24 June. I wonder when his book will be published! So based on the result of the last AfD and the further stories, which can be easily found and have indeed come out about the individual concerned, this is premature to bring it back to AfD Polargeo (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or keep is a community decision. As for nomination timing, when would have been better? Nothing's imminently going on, nothing's gone on for ages, nothing new seems foreseeable to come out... if something does, at that point we assess it. Basic WP:CRYSTAL really, I'd have thought. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shereth 17:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Darko Gavrovski[edit]
- Darko Gavrovski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
BLP of a non-notable (amateur?) "famous" historian, sole claim to notability is authorship of a self-published book on local history, which got him a few brief notices in regional media. No evidence of serious academic qualifications (beyond a claim of some unspecified level of university education) or of notable reviewed academic publishing achievements. Autobio. PROD was removed by subject's IP [38], who was elsewhere spamming their work to various articles [39] and then used the existence of those self-inserted links as the prime arguments for his own notability [40] Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur - delete unless much improved sourcing and evidence provided. There is no source for the claim this is a "famous" historian, no material or citations likely to suggest he is "famous" (except perhaps to some tiny-minority group), no evidence that the book is significant enough or has attracted enough note to merit an article, and articles whose "thrust" is to all intents and purposes about how he managed to get his book published do not inspire confidence either. he has one claimed "notable work" but that's a 2009 publication and (as above) no evidence to support the claim it is "notable". Notability of an individual implies some claim to historical note, and that credible sources have taken note of the individual, usually evidenced by significant third party coverage. None of that appears to exist here. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Should we also remove the author's edits to related articles?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete appears to be autobiography, probably with a view to being an WP:ADVERT for his book. I expect the book exists, but doubt that it is particularly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shereth 17:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steven Yates (martial artist)[edit]
- Steven Yates (martial artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable individual. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Unable to find substantial coverage of individual or "rough and tumble" method of self-defense. A few GHits (non-independent) and no-GNEWS entries. ttonyb1 (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon checking, added for consideration at the same time:
- Rough and tumble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - article on a fringe type of martial art, or possibly a brand name, taught by Steve Yates. Written by same author
- Wayne Roscherr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Steve Yates' partner (noted for completeness: speedy deleted WP:CSD#A7)
- FT2 (Talk | email) 16:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have added some sources to the articles talk page as possible evidence of notability. --Steven Yates (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both unless good evidence of notability added. Martial arts schools are ten a penny; no disrespect to the founder or author, but anyone can create their own name or brand or style of fighting method, call it what they like. Notability requires evidence this isn't all it is, that it is in fact taken note of by the wider world with significant coverage of the person or topic, in credible independent reliable sources, and not just due to usual self-publicity, brief and usual mentions (which "anything that exists" will usually get), etc. A higher standard of evidence than usual is also required (for me at least), to overcome the issue/presumption of WP:COI or use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes. The articles are reasonably written, but as it stands the topic is fatally flawed due to a lack of solid evidence of significant independent attention and historical notability, when examined thoroughly in depth and with an eye towards the possibility of promotional activity. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Completely unsourced biography --Nate1481 11:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the martial artist's page for lack of notability, and the art's page for the same reason (unless more detailed evidence of its use by the military is adduced) and its essay nature. JJL (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have reviewed the sources provided (see AFD talk page#Review of proposed sources). FT2 (Talk | email) 00:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've mulled this over for a while and I'm going to have to go with a weak delete, without prejudice to re-create if some better sources can be found. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was : Speedily deleted by FT2 under criterion A7. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aircraft In Miniature Limited[edit]
- Aircraft In Miniature Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Company article with no claim of meeting WP:Notability. Gsearch turning up only a few dozen ghits, none of which show notability; 0 gnews hits. Prod contested by author. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Acute Recordings[edit]
- Acute Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable company, fails to meet WP:CORP with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Klat" 13:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb "Klat" 13:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I've also nominated the article on the company's founder [41] for much the same reason. JNW (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agreeing with nom that the recording company in question fails WP:CORP. Tavix | Talk 15:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The article has gone through revisions during this discussion that satisfy many of the concerns. There is obviously still room for improvement but the consensus that evolved is that this is sufficiently inclusion-worthy to keep in the mainspace for improvement, rather than shunting it to user space. Whether that improvement ultimately results in a merge elsewhere or a standalone article is not for this discussion to dictate. Shereth 16:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orthographies and dyslexia[edit]
- Orthographies and dyslexia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Much of this is unsourced content fork from Orthography articles with virtually no mention of the orthography/dyslexia topic it's supposed to cover, and the proposed development [42] is heading toward original research as an analysis of orthography vs. dyslexia that has not been made in secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree completely that the current content is way off-mark. Most of it is copied from other existing Wikipedia articles, and a significant portion of it is clearly not based on secondary sources.
- I started a discussion on the article's talk page asking that we narrow the focus specifically to the role of orthography in the problems experienced by dyslexic readers. The article will have to have a very little general info about orthography to place the dyslexia information in the necessary context, but there is no need to rely on primary sources.
- The following paragraphs are the kind of information that *should* be in the article (though the paragraphs clearly need work as they are disjointed and incomplete):
- -------------------------
- Alphabetic writing systems vary significantly in the complexity of their orthography. For languages that have more shallow orthographies, such as Italian and Finnish, new readers have few problems learning to decode words. In these languages, dyslexic readers tend to have more problems with reading fluency and comprehension
- For languages with deep orthographies, new readers have a great deal more difficulty learning to decode words, such as English and French in the Latin Alphabetic writing system.
- A study comparing children's reading acquisition rates between different orthography of European Language (alphabet writing systems ), Seymour et al. 2003, found that children from a majority of European countries become accurate and fluent in foundation level reading before the end of the first school year. There are some exceptions, notably in French, Portuguese, Danish, and, particularly, in English. The effects appear not to be attributable to differences in age of starting or letter knowledge. It is argued that fundamental linguistic differences in syllabic complexity and orthographic depth are responsible. Syllabic complexity selectively affects decoding, whereas orthographic depth affects both word reading and non-word reading. The rate of development in English is more than twice as slow as in the shallow orthographies. It is hypothesized that the deeper orthographies induce the implementation of a dual (logographic + alphabetic) foundation which takes more than twice as long to establish as the single foundation required for the learning of a shallow orthography. [2][3]
- In the deepest orthographies, the hallmark symptom of dyslexia is the inability to read at the word level. These these dyslexic readers frequently have many fewer problems with comprehension once some level of decoding has been mastered.
- --------------------------
- Although the article needs a great deal of work to get it in line with wikipedia standards, the topic of how orthographies affect reading acquisition in dyslexics must be addressed in the dyslexia series of articles. If this article is deleted, I'll have to add a new article for that content. I don't mind, but very likely we'll still have to wrangle a bit over what information should be included in it so I don't see how deleting this one would solve anything.
- I suggest that we allow discussion on the Talk page some time to address the obvious problems with content, and tag the article with whatever template messages are appropriate --- need for secondary sources, need to cite sources, need for more content, whatever.
- Best, Rosmoran (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I brought this to AFD because, as you say, it's way off mark and the prime mover, Dolfrog (talk · contribs), is completely impermeable - tendentiously so - to changing track or providing required sources. I say bin it with no prejudice to re-creation if/when we have something entirely focused on the said topic and based on secondary sources. But currently, I think the whole concept is insufficiently sourced to merit an article. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Best, Rosmoran (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gordonofcartoon said: "I say bin it with no prejudice to re-creation if/when we have something entirely focused on the said topic and based on secondary sources. "
- Don't look now, but you just gave an example of when it might be appropriate to develop a new article in a sandbox ..... :-)
- I don't object to deleting it for now. Actually, I've thought that it might be better to combine this topic in with other topics that are contributing factors. Dolfrog has good intentions, but you're right, he can be difficult and stuck on seeing things in a particular way.
- I just want to put on the record that there is some information in the article that is based on secondary sources and on topic; and also that I can provide additional sources right now for the dyslexia-related parts. I add sources as I add information from those sources.
- Bottom line, either way is fine with me. Either way we're going to be dealing with the same difficulties.
- Oppose deletion. The article needs editing, not deletion. -- Evertype·✆ 08:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —+Angr 09:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From my talk page regarding the the motivations of User:Gordonofcartoon If you can write 700-word essays justifying your edits, you haven't got a communication problem. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC) This just a further demonstration of your failure to understand the nature of my communication disability, this is now becoming your preferred form of self imposed ignorance and which translates into pure disability discrimination on your part. dolfrog (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now to the mater in had. this article is a new sub article which is the result of the the summay editing of the main Dyslexia article. The aim of this new sub article is to explain the effect of orthography on dyslexia, which was and is the section heading on the dyslexia article. AS i have said from the outset of the Dyslexia project some 2 years ago I due to the severity of my clinically diagnosed communication disability Auditory Processing Disorder I can not carry out what you call copywriting I can however research and find texts from other sources which other editors in the team can copywrite on my behalf and therefore towards the common goal of improving articles. What find objectionable is how some editors just delete the content of articles content and ask for deletion when thye have not even bothered to try to understand the issues involved nor the different deficits and abilities of other editors involved. From my perspective this proposal for deletion is a further demonstration of a particular editors unwillingness to act in good faith, and to try to understand and support other editors. I am aware that I am not the easiest person to get on with, but that is due to living with Auditory Processing Disorder. I am always open to well argued and discussed opinions which differ from my own using plain English, unfortunately some WIKI editors insist on using uncomprehensable WIKI jargon, and fail to discuss their editorial actions in plain English so that all can understand what is going on.
- the aim of this article is to first explain what the different writing systems are, which is why content has ben taken from artilces specific to these topics, which will require copywriting by other editors. There is also some copy right sensitive content which also requires copywriting by other editors. After describing the technical difference between the different writing system the next stage is to define the different neurological skills required to perform the task of reading the different orthographies of these different writing systems. And finally it will then be possible to compare the neurological skill requirements of each orthography with the different neurological skill deficits that can cause dyslexia. This will then begin to explain the existing case study of a a bilingual individual, Japanese and English, but who was dyslexic only in one language English.
- this artricle has only just been taken on for improvement by the the revised team of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia editors some of whom are refreshing themselves with the recent substantial changes made to the Wikipedia dyslexia articles. Dyslexia is a very complex issue which requires a great deal of research to understand. I have asked for expert help from the Neurology Task force, and from the Writing System team. I have also noticed that a member of ther lingistics project has made some recent edits. This article will require a multi-discipline approach to editing because dyslexia is a multi-discipline issue. It takes time to find editors from these different disciplines to find the time to help out. So this article needs more time to develop, with a great deal more copywriting from those able to carryout that particular task.
dolfrog (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy for now. It's an encyclopedic topic and needs improvement, not deletion. That being said, right now it's all about orthography, hardly even mentions dyslexia; it looks like an article still under construction. Suggest userfying it for improvements (and not leaving a redirect, since we don't want cross-namespace redirects from articles to userspace) until it actually covers its proclaimed topic. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 10:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy and perhaps stub, agree with Rjanag. The subject seems fairly obviously worthy of coverage. The instant text seems to be largely copied from other articles, and only briefly mentions dyslexia. Seems to be a work in progress. A brief stub from the lede might be profitably left until the rest of the text has been related to the actual subject at hand. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. First, I'm skeptical of all "X and Y" topics. "Orthography" is a natural, legitimate encyclopedia topic. So is "dyslexia". But the intersection of these two topics doesn't make for yet another encyclopedia entry, but only for an essay. That the article is such a cobbled-together mixture of marginally relevant material covered better elsewhere is not coincidental; it's the consequence of the poor choice of topic. It might be an interesting topic for an essay, but as far as its matters belong in an encyclopedia, they belong in Dyslexia research. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This information was originally in the dyslexia article. When we made the plan to break the article up into a series, it became clear that research into the etiology of dyslexia and effective interventions would also be more than one article should contain. As it turns out, this article is actually a subordinate of the dyslexia research article, which itself became unwieldy because of the complexity of the topic. There's no way to tell that right now as the structural components enabling easy navigation have yet to be implemented.
- I have run into several topics that have been covered very effectively with an article series using Wikipedia:summary style, and this is what we're trying to do. The topic of dyslexia, however, tends to generate controversy, so reaching consensus about what should and should not be included in a particular article can take awhile. We eventually get there.
- I don't know what the correct Wiki procedure is when an article is clearly not ready for prime time. I have in the past done initial development of a new article in my sandbox. But as Gordonofcartoon rightly pointed out, that doesn't work when there are multiple editors involved in developing the article. You quickly end up with multiple sandboxes and a confused team of editors.
- If someone can tell me how to make the article a "stub" while the real content is created elsewhere, or coach me in how to "userfy" the article, I can make sure that we follow that process.
- Thanks, everyone. Believe it or not, this kind of feedback is really helpful.
- Best, Rosmoran (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Userification" just means moving the page to your userspace (e.g., User:Rosmoran/whatever-name-you-want. Stubbing means removing all of the copyvio/unsourced/not ready text. (Sometimes people move the "imperfect" text to the article's talk page for future reference.) Any autoconfirmed editor can do either of these things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Best, Rosmoran (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gordonofcartoon,
- So, if we "stub" and "userfy," that puts me working in my sandbox again. You seemed to object pretty strongly to article development in a sandbox. Are you OK with this?
- Thanks, Rosmoran (talk) 06:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I objected to a collection of related articles being diverted into multiple sandboxes under the management of a single editor of uncertain neutrality, in a way that came across as topic ownership. As things are going, it looks as if the AFD has attracted more editors, which is what the article needed. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In theory I favor keeping the article as a worthwhile topic. But I have no objection to userfying it until such time as the article accurately reflects the topic suggested in the first paragraph of the lead section, as recommended by Rjanag and Smerdis of Tlön. Cnilep (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the major changes to the article noted below happened at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As it stands the article is still not actually about dyslexia, but about differences in how different orthographies are learned with small notes about the typical symptoms expressed by dyslexics who use these orthographies. Merge with Orthography, which much of this article already duplicates, and refactor it as a section about how different orthographies are learned, including notes about the symptoms of dyslexia and other learning disabilities. This could and should be summarised into a paragraph at the Dyslexia article, but only the bits actually relevant to dyslexia, without the detailed discussion of orthographies. Both the comparison of orthographies and how orthography affects dyslexia are encyclopaedic, but this article doesn't really deal with the latter, and removing the duplication of the Orthography leads to much less than a standalone article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since your comment above I have revised the layout and added two new sub sections. This artilce will require a great deal of input from multi-discipline teams:-Linguists, Writing Systems, Orthography, Speech and language, Neurology, and Dyslexia. The article came out of the Dyslexia when it was summerised. The intila imput from ther Dyslexia article has been removed for reasons of copyright, and needs to be copy-edited to be re- introduced into the article, Currently this and other information has now been included on a new sandbox Orthographies and dyslexia/Sandbox The information which was added from various orhtography artilces was and will be required to help define what an orthography is and how orthographies vary both between and within the various writing Systems (this could not be done on the main Dyslexia article) The next step is for the Linguists to help describe the different skills required to use the various types of orthogrphy. And the final step after the various skill combinations have been described, it will then be possible to relate this to the information or skill deficits that cause dyslexia.
There are existing case studies of bilingual individuals being dyslexic in only one language, and research from Hong Kong has identified different areas of brain inactivity in when dyslexics try to read either Chinese or English. So this artilce is only in its formative stages, and we need more time to gain more input from a wide range of disciplines who have not previously contributed to articles in the Dyslexia Project. dolfrog (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone look at the article to see if we can remove the Deletion tag?[edit]
Hi,
I have done the following:
- Removed the information copied from other articles
- Added appropriate information to two sections
- Stub-ified sections where we have no appropriate information
- Added appropriate template cleanup messages
Would someone please look at the article and see if we can remove the Delete template now?
Thanks much,
Rosmoran (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just removing the tag wouldn't do any good. The AfD needs to be properly closed, which is usually done about a week after it opened. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything that I need to do to let someone know that I think the problems have been resolved? Or does this happen on some automatic schedule?
- What happens is that 7 days after the article was nominated for deletion, an uninvolved administrator will come along and read the discussion. Based on their reading of the discussion, they will determine whether a consensus about what outcome is desirable has been reached. If there is clear consensus then they will close the AfD, and implement the consensus, if the consensus is to keep then they will remove the AfD tag from the article. If there is no consensus after 7 days there are two options, either the AfD can be relisted for another period (up to another 7 days) to see if consensus develops; or the debate can be closed as no consensus (which defaults to keep) and the deletion tag will be removed from the article. The former is most likely in low participation discussions, or where there has been significant change to the article since many of those commenting expressed their opinion, while the latter is more likely in high participation discussions where it is unlikely that consensus will be reached even with more time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article at this point seems to be acceptable, and acceptably sourced. DGG (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mainspace. While many 'intersection' topics are not in the scope of the encyclopedia, this one is not one of those. Orthography is a major element in all dyslexia and dyslexics. The article has been substantially rewritten to address some of the nominator's concerns. Source removedness, quality and quantity are the main issues to be worked out now, and that does not require deletion.Synchronism (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Astral Travel[edit]
- Astral Travel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails all criteria of WP:MUSIC. Speedy declined because the author claims notability on the talk page as "among the top sellers in their genre on iTunes". This does not qualify as charting on any of the major charts, and no independent coverage can be found for the band. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Klat" 13:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, weakly. For mysterious reasons, my attempts to search Google News archives for "Astral Travel"+Bauer kept mysteriously failing. With three releases, you'd expect some coverage out there. General Google Search yielded too many false hits to sieve through; apparently there is an occultist named Bauer with a book about astral projection. Suggest astral projection as a redirect target if this is deleted. Note also that we have an article about their album Arkangelis; it perhaps should share the fate of this article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @120 · 01:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yoni Forsyth[edit]
- Yoni Forsyth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article itself is good, but its subject does not appear notable. There are references but they are at best peripherally connected to the subject and several don't mention him at all. No prejudice against keeping if notability can be shown, but I'm not seeing it in the article, and a search of Google News doesn't show it either. Sources from either Israel or Scotland might tell a different story; if so, I'll gladly withdraw this nom. Frank | talk 12:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source is a notable blogger in Israel and is well known in the Anglo-Jewish community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zclhb03 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One should also check for blogs and news written under 'Dirk Forsyth' as the subject changed his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zclhb03 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not he is a blogger or author/journalist is not in question, under either name. We are discussing WP:NOTABILITY here. Clearly he exists; clearly he blogs. The question is, how does that make him notable? Frank | talk 16:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep this article in the Jewish Chronicle (a venerable London newspaper) ( http://www.thejc.com/video/making-aliyah-yonis-youtube-journey) makes the case for this young man as something of a phenomenon on YouTube. Not a traditional form of notability, but a real one in the internet age. What if someone became notable as a Wikipedia editor, I can imagine an article documenting a notable career editing Wikipedia. Why not YouTube?Historicist (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, it could happen. And when it does...that would be the appropriate time to have an article. Frank | talk 17:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - NN, the article is a overly dramatic biography about a regular person with no spectacular achievements and frankly too much information about his life. The only two things that make him exceptional are the fact that he blogs (nothing special) and that he is gay. Poor references, most not even WP:RS. --Shuki (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—agree with Shuki. There are a few reliable sources talking about this person, but probably no more than one or two dedicated to him, and they are not convincing to me as a reason for creating an overtly detailed article. The little information that this article has sourced to WP:RS can probably be merger to LGBT in Israel, and I'm willing to give the contents of the article if it's deleted to anyone who is willing to do that. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - YouTube phenomenon? He got 1,500 hits on his videos about his aliya trip to Israel. In YouTube terms, that's barely a blink. If that's the only evidence of notability, it's not established. I looked at a few other of the cited references and they are links to his writings. Scarykitty (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "YouTube phenomenon" with 1500 hits? An article about a youtube bit with millions of hits and a couple of mentions in the English press recently got deleted, but this guy gets called a phenomenon? I have a more fitting label...non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteI think the Jewish Chronicle must have been going through a lean streak in its supply of news. --Simon Speed (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete per lack of reliable sources to establish notability. The consensus here seems to be that the given sources are either trivial or not entirely reliable. Shereth 16:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Russo[edit]
- Scott Russo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article does not provide any real references, and it is unclear that the information is accurate. This biography is inappropriate and contains information that can be seen as defamation of character for anyone named "Scott Russo". Specifically because of the discussion which suggests that "Scott Russo" is a proud gay activists with somebody stating that they will "cite sources later", which they never did.Grizzlefuz (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I fail to see how having the same name as someone else would preclude you from having an entry. Also, it doesn't matter what the comic is called as long as it is notable and sourced: similarly, being a gay rights activist is neither innappropriate nor perverse as long as that is also sourced. As it happens, I couldn't find any sources, so my !vote is for delete, but I'm no comic expert so the vote is without prejudice to changing should sources become available. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you, I appreciate your impartial viewpoint. I couldn't find any sources for the author either. If somebody else can find a source, I'm not going to argue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grizzlefuz (talk • contribs) 13:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The AfD is all over the place, obviously. I guess there might be an argument for a DAB if those other guys have articles? Anyhow Scott Russos pretty well known as an artist (my favourite Scott Russo story being the time he was investigated by the Secret Service[43]), but the article needs some sources and expansion to meet [WP:N] so I am adding the rescue tag. Artw (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - User:Grizzlefuz, who appears to have signed up purely to delete this page, is now blanking comments on Talk:Scott Russo citing "guidelines". There's something a little fishy going on here. Artw (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - I deleted a comment from the talk page that was inappropriate based on the talk page guidelines. I have sent you a message to clearly show the talk page guidelines I am referring to. You do not need to resort to personal attacks. I understand that you want to keep the page and I respect your rescue tag. Please understand that part of rescuing the article involves improving it, and I expect that you will take accountability for your rescue tag and assist in improving the article. All claims need to be verified with a valid source. The talk page entry was inappropriate because it is a personal claim. Grizzlefuz (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A quick google search didn't come up with anything from reliable sources that I felt was notable. Just being an activist (as another editor claims) doesn't make you notable, proud or not. Nor does being gay. Maybe those promised sources will change my mind if the materialize and if they are reliable and significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is not asserted, let alone shown. His one listed work is a failure, but there's no evidence its a notable failure. Edward321 (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP While this article needs SERIOUS work, Scott Russo's Jizz is described by The Comics Reporter as "the one book of that moment in comics which was hugely influential without having a presence for itself before or after that time". Obviously notable. Let's keep this article as a stub and let's hope more info becomes available from other interested editors and readers. Aliveatoms (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Thank you, the article is getting better now. What do you think about deleting the sentence that says "Russo appears to have published nothing since the cancellation of JIZZ"? I don't think that claim is verified. Also, is there a way the article can be adjusted so that it is clear that it refers to Scott Russo the comic book writer? That way somebody can add an article for the musician (and any other notable people named Scott Russo) and not have it be within the same article. Maybe the article title could be changed to something like "Scott Russo (Comic Book Artist)"? Grizzlefuz (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence this person has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. In the sole third-party citation, a Comics Reporter review of a comic by Mari Naomi, Mr. Russo's work Jizz gets a glowing but extremely brief mention. And that's it. — Satori Son 21:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 23:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of airports with wireless internet[edit]
- List of airports with wireless internet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A completely pointless and unnecessary list. The problem is that its unsourced and there is no reason for its existence. It'd be similar to if we had a list of airports which have bars or a certain kind of restaurant. It's just a list with no real purpose. User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. Canterbury Tail talk 11:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a directory list. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete And I like lists. I like to keep them. This one, however, falls through my sieve. Collect (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not an unsourced travel guide. Anyway, certainly in countries like Britain I expect that this will very shortly simply be a duplicate of a general list of airports. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete wikipedia is not a guide. MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the love of Jimbo we are not a freaking wireless internet service directory. JBsupreme (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NOTADIR. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. By NawlinWiki (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boodachitaville[edit]
- Boodachitaville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Webcomic with no evidence of notability (zero Google News, Books, or Scholar hits;. Previously PRODded; prod tag removed by creator. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find any reliable sources. Fails WP:WEB. Iowateen (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:WEB pretty clearly. -Falcon8765 (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm puzzled, isn't this a clear CSD A7 candidate? (ie, db-web). Hairhorn (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment Hairhorn - I've added the A7 tag too since, having read the db-web conditions, I think you're right. I'm still learning CSD and have tended to be cautious in areas I don't know much about, but on reading the db-web guidelines it looks like I should have gone with the speedy tag here. Lesson learned. Gonzonoir (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @119 · 01:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mint Jam (Band)[edit]
- Mint Jam (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Procedural nomination. This article was previously nominated for speedy deletion as a non-notable band, but was contested on the basis that this band actually meets article 10 of WP:BAND. Because of this I declined the speedy to enable a full discussion of this subject. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources to back up the claims, including C10. Esradekan Gibb "Klat" 13:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Fair Deal (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy merge to Life with Derek. Per WP:SK, the nominator is not requesting deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Life with Derek on DVD[edit]
- Life with Derek on DVD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Pointless page. What little information contained could easily be merged into the main Life with Derek article. magnius (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge what little information there is and redirect to Life with Derek, unless the creator (or someone else) can demonstrate that there's enough coverage of the DVDs themselves that we need a separate article to cover them. Seems doubtful. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To the Nom. Well, be bold and merge it then. This is "Articles for Deletion", not "Articles that I think should be merged". Esradekan Gibb "Klat" 13:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - the nomination suggests merge, not deletion. A merge discussion does not need AfD. Rlendog (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
670A Health Services Maintenance Technician[edit]
- 670A Health Services Maintenance Technician (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Insufficient notability as a job within a job, really. Ranks I can understand, but specific positions? Short of them being, say, First Sea Lord, they're not likely to be notable. Ironholds (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Were this better wikified, there might be an obvious merger target. Perhaps someone who knows more about these US military positions could suggest one. -First Moon Lord (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename by dropping the 670A from the title. Reasonable when considered as a break-out of the Army medical dept. articles, but could also be merged there. JJL (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @118 · 01:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not all jobs are notable, Wikipedia is not a directory. Abductive (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was 'keep', but needs improvements. . It's clear from this discussion that the article is still salvageable, but it's in some need of hard work. (X! · talk) · @117 · 01:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alta Vista Gardens[edit]
- Alta Vista Gardens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable; no hits on Google other than official site and a page that no longer exists. Also a violation of Wiki's spam policy; page creator admitted on article discussion page that he created it solely to advertise his company. sixtynine • spill it • 17:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer discussion page, the article was created as an advertisement. CarbonX (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Defintitely more to the article, needs work, I could go either way. CarbonX (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Seems to be written as spam. Desperatly needs secondary sourcing. Could be fixed i think if the cretor spends the time. But as of now it reads as an advertisementOttawa4ever (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In further thought since the article cretor created the page as a possible COI. It makes it doubtful this may be done by the creator Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I Did what i could with the article i think some additional sources can be used here http://expandinghorizons.biz/html/aricles_about_us.html but its hard to know what to put in because i dont undertsnad gardens so well. I think the article can be saved thogh, additionally they need to be verified as their posted on the main web site Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In further thought since the article cretor created the page as a possible COI. It makes it doubtful this may be done by the creator Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feldmoves (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)The site does have relevance. Walk through it, go to the Garden News page. There is a great deal of community interest in the Garden and activities and progess continues. Seach for the site in 'Bing!'but list it as 'Alta Vista Botanical Gardens' and you will find 9 of the 10 links on page 1 relate to the Garden. On Google, seven of the listings on the first page relate to Alta Vista Garden in Vista (including the Wikipedia listing). We have had a lot of press but some of it has dropped off. I could site many more sources but they would have to come from reprints on the AVG web site. Also, almost half of our Board mmebers are connected with Quail Botanical Gardens in Encinitas, CA which is a well established Garden. Bryan[reply]
- Delete - non-notable garden. andy (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but ... The Garden has numerous secondary sources which have been implemented and that could be implemeted (They are available on the web). They do establish some notability. There has been a considerable amount of work done on this article. But there is a considerable amount to be done still as well. I think there are some issues. One issue is that It is generated on the basis of COIN. Tagging the article i think is very important at this stage and alot of information in the article still gives off this aroma and needs addressed. The article needs work. If this is addressed, there isnt much reason to delete the article. If its not addressed its hard to save the article and it comes accross wrong. At the very least the article could be merged with the main Botanical garden page and if a neutral party came along could regenerate it. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I think. I didn't spent a lot of time digging through the sources (as of this revision), but they seemed to be reliable. There's still some flowery language to be cleaned up, but there seems to be enough there worth saving that deleting the article isn't the right solution. Kingdon (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be helpful to have more comments about the reliability of the sourcing as this crucial is crucial to the guideline the AFD needs to be closed against.
- There was a new york times article that was in the article before, but seems to have disappeared now. And several local newspaper clippings from the area where the garden is located. Depending on your view of local media and the NY times (which not being present anymore seems to be blow to national notability) makes the article a bit notabile. Id say the sources as they stand in the article at this point in time right now its sketchy at this point. That is not to say that other sources dont exist and could be implemented. The main website claims other national magazines have covered the garden. But this information has not been implemented nor verified to my knowledge Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Per WP:SNOW. (and WP:NODUH...) J.delanoygabsadds 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Islam in the Pitcairn Islands[edit]
- Islam in the Pitcairn Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. The article is about the non-existance of a religion in a territory of about 50 inhabitants. No sources available, as can be seen by the content. The only source used in the article doesn't even mention Islam at all. Jafeluv (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no basis for inclusion, and no need for a precedent for an article on every religion that isn't practiced in each region where it's not practiced. 7 talk | Δ | 09:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. While I could see it for a larger country where it is not practiced, it doesn't make sense on this scale. Orderinchaos 10:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "Religion X" in "Country Y" articles should only exist when a religion actually exists in a given state or when it notably does not exist there (like if all of the adherents are expelled). youngamerican (wtf?) 11:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article is about a "null set" which does not pass any test at all for notability, much less having notable content. Collect (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An article about stuff that doesn't exist in a country is absolutely ridiculous. Also establishing notability in this case is not entirely possible. Aditya α ß 13:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an answer in search of a question. This would set a really bad precident. One can only imagine a bunch of boilerplate articles about Catholicism in the Pitcairn Islands, Judaism in the Pitcairn Islands, Krishna Consciousness in the Pitcairn Islands, etc. User is contributing to or creating similar "non-answers," BTW. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was attempting to help out the original editor by pointing out that sources needed to be added concerning the Seventh Day Adventist missionaries and lack of Islamic religion. Once they were added I removed the original PROD tag and asked other editors for advise. The consensus was to merge the information. Since then, the original editor has been adding CSD tags and other deletion tags to several entries that have to do with Islam in other countries. I guess no good deed goes unpunished. I'll be posting this on the merge discussion as well. Wperdue (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @116 · 01:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Callum Reynolds[edit]
- Callum Reynolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD, no reason given. Football player fails WP:ATH as he has never played in a fully-professional league or competition. --Jimbo[online] 07:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to make an appearance at a fully pro level. Although sources are given in this article, they don't really establish him as a notable player. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if and when he becomes by playing in a fully-pro league. GiantSnowman 09:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable athlete. John Asfukzenski (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yet to play in a professional league. Spiderone (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Played in the Premier Reserve League [44]. --Ilion2 (talk) 05:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Playing in the reserves isn't notable. Spiderone (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. According to Premier Reserve League this league is Level 1 league and this player played in this league. And this player is employed by a Premier League club and played for this club in this league. Any proof for your thesis? --Ilion2 (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If that is true then players like Davide Petrucci and Daniel Drinkwater should have pages since they've played in the reserves. Spiderone (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is no word about Premier Reserve League in the disussion about Davide Petrucci. The deletion reason for Daniel Drinkwater was "blatant vandalism", not notability. Whe are here to create an encyclopedia, not to delete one. Thanks for supporting this. --Ilion2 (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If that is true then players like Davide Petrucci and Daniel Drinkwater should have pages since they've played in the reserves. Spiderone (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. According to Premier Reserve League this league is Level 1 league and this player played in this league. And this player is employed by a Premier League club and played for this club in this league. Any proof for your thesis? --Ilion2 (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Playing in the reserves isn't notable. Spiderone (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Premier Reserve League is not a fully professional league - it's a league of reserve teams, as the name suggests. Since he hasn't played for Portsmouth, he doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. Black Kite 09:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the reserve team league is not fully pro, as it's quite common for teams to field kids from the youth teams in the reserves to toughen them up a bit. If we were to consider playing for the reserves sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE then essentially every player who's ever been on the books of a pro club would be notable, even if they never played for the first team, as they will have all played for the reserves at some point. And at a time when many editors are questioning the fact that every player who's ever played for a professional club's first team is considered notable, we really don't need to open a new can of worms by suggesting that all those that never made it past the reserves are inherently notable as well..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, per WP:SNOW and WP:HOAX. Template was deleted as well; image was deleted as being also a hoax — if there's no such family, they couldn't have had a crest, and the source did not include the image. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fujiwara Manami[edit]
- Fujiwara Manami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Batch nomination of a large group of related hoax articles by the same user, starting in December 2008. The articles seem plausible, but the source is wrong (published before subjects were born, and Google searches revealed no information whatsoever on these persons outside mirrors of Wikipedia (of which there are many!). Not being an expert on Japanese nobility, nor being able to do a search with Japanese script (Kanji?), I asked for the advice of User talk:Nihonjoe#House of Kujō, a Japanese admin, who agreed with my opinion but sent me for a second, more thorough look at User talk:Oda Mari#Advice needed, who also could find nothing on these people. If these aren't hoaxes, they are truly not notable and unverifiable anyway. Fram (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated:
- Ryusuke Fujiwara
- Taiji Fujiwara
- Kumiko Konoe, Duchess of Kujo
- Kujō Masahito, Duke of Kujō
- Kujō Toshihito
- Hamano Michiko
- Sadako Kuroi
- Kyousuke Fujiwara
- Fujiwara Takumi
- Sachiko Yoshikuni
- Yamashita Aiko
- Miku Ishimaru
- Kazumi Fujiwara
- Toshiharu Fujiwara
- Tsukako Fujiwara
- Mishiyo Fujiwara
- Atsushi Fujiwara
- Akemi Fujiwara
- Arata Fujiwara
- Susumu Fujiwara
- Template:Kujo family (yes, templates don't go in an AFD, but I think we can make an exception here).
If these are truly hoaxes, User:Pawadol and User:Kazaza kun should be indef blocked and probably checkusered as well. Fram (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't the users in question be notified of this AfD? Jafeluv (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the image of the family mon, uploaded by the same user? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Better to deleteit as well, just to be safe. Fram (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The mon is a correct one, but the image is copyrighted by the sourced site. Oda Mari (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image can't be copyrighted anymore as it's a very old design. It is far outside any possibility of being copyrighted. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The mon is a correct one, but the image is copyrighted by the sourced site. Oda Mari (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Better to deleteit as well, just to be safe. Fram (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the image of the family mon, uploaded by the same user? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The reference being written before these people were born and the fact that no information of them is found outside Wikipedia are strong indications that these articles are hoaxes. Jafeluv (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as hoax. None of these names appear in the only listed source. This is unsurprising as most of the subjects were born after the books was published, it only covers Japan through 1334. Edward321 (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as blatant hoax. References are highly questionable and non-verifiable. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as blatant hoax per above. I couldn't find anything on them on the web in Japanese. Oda Mari (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. The image should not be deleted, though. Everything else can go. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. I have of course discounted User:PeeJay2K3's !vote as COI ... Black Kite 08:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Manchester United 1-4 Liverpool (14 March 2009)[edit]
- Manchester United 1-4 Liverpool (14 March 2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not every football (soccer) game is notable. This game has no text outside of the lineup. WP is not a directory of soccer games. no indication of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest possible delete - This is not a notable match by any stretch of the imagination. In the writing of a history of either of these two clubs, it is extremely unlikely that it would receive any more than a passing mention. – PeeJay 07:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' The above user's talk page mentions he's a "fervent supporter of Manchester United" so his comments should be ignored as clearly biased. 68.244.159.15 (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh well, that only leaves 14 delete !votes against zero keeps then..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' The above user's talk page mentions he's a "fervent supporter of Manchester United" so his comments should be ignored as clearly biased. 68.244.159.15 (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – PeeJay 07:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails every notability criteria Spiderone (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONGER DELETE THAN IS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE per PeeJay2K3. We're not a directory, damnit! JBsupreme (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The match just isn't notable unless you're a Liverpool fan, and to cap it all the scoreline at the top of the page is wrong! Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest delete ever times infinity - absolutely, 100% non-notable match! GiantSnowman 09:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I had no idea that this AfD would elicit this kind of response. I was actually a little afraid of the opposite... that somehow I'd chosen a completely relevant match that I just couldn't find any sources on. Shadowjams (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Ignoring the incorrect bit at the top (saying that Man U won(!) this game 2-0 back in 2004), there is absolutely nothing that gives this particular game notability (unless you're like my friend Jenny M, who supports Liverpool), especially considering that, despite the result, Man U still won the the title this year anyway. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Single event not notable in this case. Collect (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and consign to oblivion! Favonian (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with the fist of an angry god. -Falcon8765 (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A fantastic Liverpool victory at Old Trafford, but just one of several great matches resulting in wins for Liverpool around that time. Still a Delete though, because "WP is not a directory of football games" Astronaut (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete On the basis that this match would not appear in an article on the history of either club. --Dweller (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NOT#STATS Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, for obvious reasons (and I can't stand Man Utd...) Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it's notable in the sense that four months on, I still remember the merciless taunting the Liverpool fan in my office delivered to the Man U fans. But that's not the same thing as encyclopedic notability. --Stormie (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete However I would disagree on some of the comments as the match is notable to be mentioned in a season article and a highlight of Man U and Liverpool's 2008-09 season. Govvy (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a couple of sentences in each of History of Manchester United F.C. (1999–present) and Liverpool F.C. season 2008–09. If this article had any textual content I'd recommend a merge, but it doesn't. No mention in 2008–09 Premier League beyond the actual score in the table of results, but that article is a fairly dry collection of statistics. --Stormie (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable game. --Carioca (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 22:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congolese–Turkish relations[edit]
- Congolese–Turkish relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, mostly multilateral. [45], I've looked at the first 60 of these search results and found little. A military cooperation agreement and visit by a foreign minister in 2005, do not make for notable relations. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as another permutation and combination of two very marginally connected nations. Fails notability test clearly. Collect (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Simply no evidence of an actually notable relationship. Minor cooperation and visit don't look notable to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As the official Turkish website declares, there are no political problems between the two countries. Unfortunately that is because there really isn't much of a relationship. I also searched for relations between Turkey and Zaire and found nothing but a t-shirt from a black-listed website. Unfortunately we must delete this article because the topic is not notable per WP:NOTE. Drawn Some (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Another apparently random combination created for the sake of it's creation, as it evidently wasn't created for the in-depth secondary-source coverage of the topic. Fails WP:GNG entirely. BlueSquadronRaven 21:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG as documented by editors commenting above. If this article ends up being kept or no-consensed, it should be renamed Democratic Republic of the Congo-Turkey relations per convention and to avoid confusion with Republic of the Congo.Yilloslime TC 23:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- D2,D4 Aymatth2 (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bilateral AfD arguments | |
---|---|
Delete |
|
Keep |
|
Comment |
|
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @115 · 01:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Skeo movie[edit]
- Skeo movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable student film, no sources, no claims of notability. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unable currently to meet WP:NF. If this changes, allow the film back. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 22:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dominique Peyroux[edit]
- Dominique Peyroux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable rugby league footballer who has not yet played at the highest level, fails WP:ATHLETE. Prod removed by ip without explanation or attempt to verify notability. florrie 06:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — florrie 06:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE, no evidence of participation at a fully professional level. WWGB (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject does not meet WP:ATHLETE. Happy to allow re-creation of article if and when the subject meets this criteria. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE WP:ATHLETE does not make, this. JBsupreme (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above Mattlore (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @115 · 01:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brand Networking[edit]
- Brand Networking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Completely unsourced original research. Prod tag was removed by creator without comment. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article is constructed with nothing but original research. A web search turns up a few instances of the term, generally in the context of marketing documents or blogs operated by people in the marketing sector. (Note also, the article title should not be a proper noun on Wikipedia, because there is no evidence of notability as a trademark or similar.) TheFeds 06:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, that sort of thing: . Brands are using brand networking to create communities that serve as a fully encompassing interactive destination to incentivize brand participation online and off. This evolved level of user participation with the brand creates strong relationships with consumers, leverages sales and generates fan equity. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete per lack of reliable sources at this time. It may be appropriate to revisit this issue after the film is released to see if it then becomes inclusion-worthy. Userfication for that purpose is available upon request. Shereth 16:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BURDEN (film)[edit]
- BURDEN (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
NN film, fails WP:CRYSTAL Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand. BURDEN is a short film that is nominated for many awards with many links that can show this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyncho14 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide reliable sources? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1439527/ IMDB BURDEN PAGE
FESTIVALS
http://aoffest.com/pdf/OfficialFilmScheduleAOF2009.pdf AOF screenings page
http://aoffest.com/2009-nom-results.html AOF Nomination Results, Shows BURDEN's nominations
http://www.amritsa.com/eire/index.htm International Film Festival of Ireland shows BURDEN and Michael D. Lynch
Writer Director Producer http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2253518/ Michael David Lynch IMDB
NEWS
http://www.scifiscoop.com/news/teaser-trailer-for-short-sci-fi-film-burden/ sci fi scoop Burden write up
http://www.screenmag.com/story.l9?p=565 screen mag write up on Burden
MAIN CAST
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0191520/ Peter Cullen IMDB
--Lyncho14 (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)comment added by Lyncho14 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not reliable sources. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imdb is a reliable source, you can see the trailer on the website and her Peter Cullen's Voice. You can also listen to Peter's voice on other videos to compare. Burden does exhist, but it should be moved into the film portal. How do we move it to the film portal. I am new to this and I'm trying to understand this new world.--Lyncho14 (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDB is not a reliable source in that it is user-edited just like Wikipedia is. In addition, it says the film exists, we don't dispute that. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When did IMDB become a blanket non-reliable source? Although it relies on user input, it is hardly user edited "just like Wikipedia is," given editoial control over the content that gets added to IMDB. In the past, IMDB was deemed a reliable source for some items but not others. For example, Wikipedia:Reliable Source Examples states that "Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence." but does not reject IMDB as a source for all information. Rlendog (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, IMDB is not "user-edited". Users (as well as industry and industry professionals and experts) may submit to the database, and submissions are not published by IMDB until after they are vetted. Wikipedia accepts that IMDB may be a valuable tool for directing one's search for sources, but because IMDB does not give full disclosure of their entire vetting processes, Wikipedia feels that it is not WP:RS for establishing notability. See: WP:Citing IMDB, Where IMDB gets its information and the discussions on Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb. There has been no consensus upon just what parts might be acceptable and what parts might not. And even if certain informations contained therein might be eventualy found acceptable, they would not in and of themselves establish notability. So efforts must always be made to confirm elsewhere anything offered by IMDB. In this case the question is rendered moot, as the existance of this film and its impending release has already been amply confirmed in sources outside of IMDB. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When did IMDB become a blanket non-reliable source? Although it relies on user input, it is hardly user edited "just like Wikipedia is," given editoial control over the content that gets added to IMDB. In the past, IMDB was deemed a reliable source for some items but not others. For example, Wikipedia:Reliable Source Examples states that "Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence." but does not reject IMDB as a source for all information. Rlendog (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDB is not a reliable source in that it is user-edited just like Wikipedia is. In addition, it says the film exists, we don't dispute that. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what are you disputing? So that I can clearly understand how to move forward?--Lyncho14 (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:Notability (films). Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's not WP:CRYSTAL since it's due to premiere in ten days, but it's also a 10 min. short that hasn't been seen or much written about yet (I'm not sure how significant the Screen Magazine article is, considering we don't have a page on the publication). At this time, it doesn't satisfy WP:NOTFILM. If it takes the world by storm on July 25, it can always be recreated. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By having Peter Cullen the voice of Optimus Prime doesn't that help make it WP:NTEFILM It's the first new character he has played in 5 years according to his imdb page. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0191520/
Peter Cullen has two projects out this summer Transformers Revenge of the Fallen and a short film project BURDEN (film), Transformers just set records at the Box office and here Peter Cullen works on a Giant Blockbuster and on the side does this indie short film. How often does that happen where some one as big as Peter Cullen working on a short indie film? It may even be Peter Cullen's first short film, or at least his first short film in 50 years. Isn't that notable? --Lyncho14 (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. Did you read the notability link I provided above? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, also Wikipedia is not your website. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete CoI, NN; if references are improved to demonstrate notability then Weak Keep. -Falcon8765 (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep or Userfy without prejudice and allow return in a few weeks once WP:NF can be better met. I just myself gave the article a needed sandblasting for format and style and explained myself on the author's talk page. if deleted, I urge a closer to userfy the article to the author at User:Lyncho14/sandbox/Burden (film). MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is another news source from a formal newspaper. I'm learning lots about Wikipedia, thanks for the Help, didn't know about the Sandbox etc... The Ann Arbor Michigan News Paper just did a write up on BURDEN, Ann Arbor's newspaper has a 174-year history. How do I add this to the reference list? The website link is below. http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2009/07/local_building_project_documen_1.html --Lyncho14 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added it to the article and modified my opinion above. As its premiere date gets closer, it seems to be getting more toward meeting WP:GNG. Its slim still, yes... but it appears to be gaining momentum. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hassan Hawas[edit]
- Hassan Hawas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Speedy delete – Fails WP:N; no Google hits except Facebook and MySpace pages; written by page subject himself etc. Jrcla2 05:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sorry I forgot to put Hassan Hawas in as the page name on the tag. That is the article up for deletion, not "PageName". My mistake. Jrcla2 05:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G11 and A7. Self-promotional, no indication of notability. (Optionally, userfy.) TheFeds 06:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Gamera#Showa series. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply, so a merge is more appropriate than deletion. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gamera vs Garasharp[edit]
- Gamera vs Garasharp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about an 'unmade film' and based on storyboards on YouTube fails WP:NF and WP:CRYSTAL. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 05:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Iowateen (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Come on, guys. Gamera is the friend to all children... show a little charity... I don't think Crystal Ball applies here-- it's not a future film, it's a planned, but unmade film from almost 40 years ago. I did a little searching, and it was indeed a real project. In Japanese it is "ガメラ対大邪獣ガラシャープ", and, apparently, its existence was made known in a Gamera DVD documentary... That said, I haven't been able to find much on it. I'd say merge whatever verifiable info we can find on the film into a section of the main Gamera article-- or, better yet, an article on the film series as a whole. It's real, it's verifiable, but, from what little searching I've done, there's not enough to be said on it to need an entire article. (Comment subject to change if someone else can find more on the project.) Dekkappai (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dekkappai is right -- WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to a project that was verifiably canned over 30 years ago. That said, there doesn't seem to be much to say about it. Unless more can be find about the project itself, merge to Gamera. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgot to mention that, specifically, merge to Gamera#Showa series, where the main article discusses this film. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, a merge would be best, since there really isn't enough for a whole article. Cabbage-Sama (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FINE DELETE IT PPPPPPPPPPPPLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloverbeatme!! (talk • contribs) 02:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any particular reason for deleting it? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @115 · 01:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Pens, No Pads[edit]
- No Pens, No Pads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable mixtape. No reliable sources. My speedy delete tag was removed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Speedy A9 not possible due to the fact the artist has an article. Esradekan Gibb "Klat" 13:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Mixtape is non-notable as it failed to chart on any major music chart and did not receive significant coverage from secondary reliable sources. — Σxplicit 18:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 22:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 'Bout to Murdah This Shit[edit]
- I'm 'Bout to Murdah This Shit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
NN album, most ghits are torrent and lyrics sites. No media coverage. →ROUX ₪ 03:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. nn album. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:JUSTANOTHERNONNOTABLEMIXTAPE. Esradekan Gibb "Klat" 13:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NALBUM. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm About To Say DELETE This Shit. JBsupreme (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but not speedy. A7 and A9 do not cover this (because A7 does not include albums and A9 specifies that the artist's page must not exist for deletion). Otherwise, it is not notable as per WP:NALBUM. Malinaccier (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @115 · 01:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kumar Mahabir[edit]
- Kumar Mahabir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This has been speedy deleted twice as spam, and was marked db-spam again. I do not think it spam, but send it here for a decision of whether or not he is notable. Assistant professors rarely are, but I have not yet checked his books. DGG (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - According to this article, he has written seven books, and is CEO of "Chakra Publishing House". According to the Chakra Publishing House page (on Geocities!), they have published seven books written or edited by Kumar Mahabir—which means that all of his books are self-published. Other than his books, he has no claim to notability. And while being an AUTOBIOGRAPHY isn't itself grounds for deletion, it's just bad practice to re-create it again after it's already been deleted twice. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If was deleted twice as spam, which it might well have been considered to be because of the title: "Profile/Short biography of Kumar Mahabir". Spam is sometimes used when something is very likely not notable, but still doesn't fit in A7. that's what prod is for , or AfD. Speedy is not an optio at this point, because speedy was declined. The best course is sometime to AfD, because then re_creations can be removed as G4. DGG (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A couple of his books have had independent reviews - here and here. According to LA Times he's the head of the Association of Caribbean Anthroplogists. There are a few articles by him in Caribbean papers too, his analysis on crime has been cited by The Guardian. Not sure how all this works out, but a stub might be possible through these reliable source references. He probably won't pass WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, but might squeeze through WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpacemanSpiff (talk • contribs) 5:59, 15 July 2009
- Reply - I could be convinced to agree with WP:GNG if someone is able to find any other members of the Association. So far, I haven't been able to, which leads me to believe that it's about as relevant to notability as his publishing company. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not yet seem to pass WP:PROF. If he were really curator of a major museum, that might be enough, but the museum site lists him only as a vice chairman and the low amount of press I can find for the Indian Caribbean Museum suggests it is not major. As for the Association of Caribbean Anthropologists, the only pages I can find on it are really about Mahabir and state only that he's president of it, so clearly its notability is less than his and can't be used to support this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @115 · 01:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Valiban[edit]
- Valiban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Movie is in pre production (apparently). Way too early for an article, per WP:Hammer. Shadowjams (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 04:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 04:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Future film; sources in English and Tamil only say that the script has been completed, and that too only in passing or some speculation on who the actress is going to be. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 19:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice and allow back once WP:NFF or WP:NF can be met. This article is far too premature. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a future film but cast and crew definitely not confirmed. Avoid mishaps. Universal Hero (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @115 · 01:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rock Kinngdom[edit]
- Rock Kinngdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Verifiability and notability in question. Google Search gave 4 hits. Only two sites (outside wiki) talk about the island but is in blogspot. I want to CSD this thing but deletion of locations tend to be controversial so here we are. Lenticel (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless reliable sources are provided. Sounds like a hoax as written. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless reliable sources showing notability are provided (not that I can see this happening). The photos on the blogspot posts show that they are somewhere near a coast, but from the vague location given I can't find an island matching the limited description from any online mapping site's satellite photography. Given the imprecision and small size of the alleged island though this does not prove anything conclusively. That an island between Indonesia and Malaysia and reachable from at least Indonesia in the small inflatable craft shown in the photos has not been known about and named for centuries seems inconceivable (unless it doesn't exist). Note also an apparently early copy of this article at http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Rock_Kinngdom and http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/User:Rockkinngdom. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Levelism[edit]
- Levelism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is from the same editor that brought us Rolling Ban (AfD discussion). I can find no evidence that there is a real think tank by this name, nor any reason to believe that the WWW site is genuine. There's no evidence to suggest that this is a real, documented, peer reviewed, and acknowledged part of human knowledge. It appears to be a complete fabrication from whole cloth. Uncle G (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If the Corporate Statesmen "think tank" is the same as this outfit (which seems to be the only possibly relevant entity that turns up in a Web search), it would seem to be headquartered in a small suburban private residence. In any event, searches for "Avraam J. Dectis" and for "levelism" in conjunction with either "Corporate Statesmen" or "Dectis" turn up absolutely nothing with any connection to the article's topic. This unsourced article fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the house seems to have a nice yard, but the suburban street doesn't seem to be where a corporation would be headquarted. Looks like OR unless sourced. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, original research about a non-notable neologism that somebody made up. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to School District 6 Rocky Mountain. Originally closed by JForget. Reclosing to fix formating. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
McKim Middle School[edit]
- McKim Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
From what I understand of the rules, this article is so short should be deleted because it violates "Wikipedia is not a directory". I attempted to redirect it to its district, and was reverted by somebody who doesn't know that primary and middle schools are not considered notable. RarkDanch (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no indication of notability and middle schools are generally nn. JJL (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-direct - from what I gather, it is common practice to either merge or redirect these articles with a consensus of re-direct no one should have much of an opposition. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to School District 6 Rocky Mountain. Someone should consider redirecting the articles for the elementary schools bluelinked there as well. Deor (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as we always do for articles like this. DGG (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to School District 6 Rocky Mountain, where the school is currently listed. Cnilep (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to School District 6 Rocky Mountain per usual practice; no deletion case has been made. TerriersFan (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Deville (Talk) 05:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wilfrido Laureano[edit]
- Wilfrido Laureano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Player's only measure of notability seems to be involvement in a trade in 2006. I see no evidence that the player ever played in the MLB, making this a failure of both WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Oren0 (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE, never got higher than Class A and doesn't appear to have even played at that level since 2006. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to 2007 World Series of Poker#Main Event. Keep arguments don't address the nominator's concerns, which are based primarily on WP:ONEVENT. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tuan Lam[edit]
- Tuan Lam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
nominating as per WP:ONEVENT. almost all coverage relates to him competing in 1 event. [46]. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect (and merge if appropriate) to 2007_World_Series_of_Poker#Main_Event, the event for which he is known. JJL (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Second place at the WSOP is close to WP:Athlete (leave aside questions of whether poker players are athletes). But I understand the nom's argument. Shadowjams (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Shadowjams. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to 2007 World Series of Poker#Main Event. He's had only one significant cash in his poker career (granted it was a HUGE one), but he needs at least another one to merit an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Society of Friends of the USA[edit]
- Society of Friends of the USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Lacks sources, potentially fails WP:Advert and/or notability. Gosox5555 (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advert, primary sources, notability. Cnilep (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. This appears to be some sort of ESL school, not a Quaker establishment. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SF Connect[edit]
- SF Connect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This organization does not exist anymore. Project Homeless Connect is the only one of it's sub-projects to still exist, and has taken over all funds and contacts from SF Connect. Hellopeoples939 (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. If there's an appropriate merge target that would be okay, although the content still needs sourcing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It doesn't matter if the group still exists or not. What matters is non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties, and that's just not happening here. JBsupreme (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gabriella Day[edit]
- Gabriella Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete Article fails notability requirements. Only sources are primary and are for the official website and a twitter account. Google brings up almost nothing, if anything. Bmg916Speak 15:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I did a quick Google search ([47]), and I came up with nothing. I looked at a bicycling website that streams news apparently, and there were no news items for her. Fails WP:ATHLETE. -- Nomader (Talk) 15:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indepedent coverage, fails notability standards for athletes. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SweetSpot[edit]
- SweetSpot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Unreferenced. No signs of news coverage. No relevant Google results for "SweetSpot" "network access control" "open source", "SweetSpot" Ilya Etingof or "SweetSpot" ChilliSpot. — Rankiri (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - does not seem notable. I have been unable to find reliable sources. Search did turn up possible COI (original author of article may be creator of application), though that isn't necessarily a bad thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with nom; can't find any indepedent source talking about this, all sources refer to the "other" sweet spot.Fuzbaby (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Old Battle Songs[edit]
- Old Battle Songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Old Battle Songs is a bootleg, (not official)--Neo139 (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NALBUMS: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable"; there is no indication this one is. I42 (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boyfriend Robotique[edit]
- Boyfriend Robotique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not appear to be a notable troupe. Unreferenced for nearly three years. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability. Nothing on Google News. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The text was removed from this page in 2007 by sockpuppet User:Truth in Comedy. I have not found any good claims to it being notable yet though. Polargeo (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable and looks like they don't exist any more anyway. Polargeo (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Despite being relisted, no consensus has formed. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robin Hood (ballet)[edit]
- Robin Hood (ballet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any other sources for this particular play. Gordonrox24 | Talk 05:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is some room for improvement. Paul Vasterling and the ballet Robin Hood are notable enough for Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If so, why is he not yet on Wikipedia?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any reference except the two reviews in the article which confirm that a ballet group staged a work with this title in 1998. Notability is not inherited, so even if Paul Vasterling is notable, one work is not necessarily notable unless sources say it is. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Robin Hood is a well-known story, perhaps as well known as Cinderella? Worth keeping, but lack of references make this a very weak keep. -- AdamD123 (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, every artistic performance of every version of every well-known story is not necessarily notable. Find reliable sources, or this needs to go. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think it unlikely that a production created by this well known company with music from Korngold did not get reviewed, and consequently become notable. I've added a review from a nationallly known Dance magazine, and there are 2 local reviews. We need articles on the company and the director, who are both almost certainly notable. DGG (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to skateboarding. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trampboarding[edit]
- Trampboarding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This page is a how-to with no reference of its notability. All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 11:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Apparently this is taking a skateboard without wheels onto a trampoline. It has hundreds of youtube videos (looks like mad fun), but no notable coverage. Something tells me we'll see this one again in the future, and when we do, no one will be trying to delete it...--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 12:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This new sport/activity has a ton of GHits and 3 GNews hits. I imagine is someone wants to try hard enough they can create a legit article out of it, but clearly the current one can't stay. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can bring the page back when it has nobility. (such as a couple stories about kids breaking a leg as a result of this) KMFDM FAN (talk!) 00:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentNearly a week since the nomination. I think it will be deleted. Kayau Jane Eyre PRIDE AND PREJUDICE les miserables 11:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge Has received rather substantial coverage [48]. Should be included in encyclopedia in some form. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and rd to skateboarding or a related page. JJL (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging to skateboarding seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Choose curtains[edit]
- Choose curtains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD. Fails notability - there are no sources other than the company website, some directory listings, and what appears to be the personal knowledge of the author (with potential WP:COI) Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promotional article for a curtain store in Britain. No evidence of notability—the "Televised Appearances" don't seem to have been coverage of the business, but rather product placement or set furnishing. TheFeds 06:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are a few attempts at notability in the article but I have tried to follow them up and I agree with the nominator they don't lead me to any reliable sources or significant coverage. Polargeo (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:CORP. Iowateen (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 22:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.