Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 22 March 24 March >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 08:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roonjha[edit]

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

Delete this is not verifiable; surely the largest tribe in these provinces - as claimed by the article - would have some coverage but nothing at google. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I could not find any sources(other than a few internet forums) that mentioned this tribe. I found one source that briefly mentioned a tribe called Rhanjha, but that was it.WackoJackO 23:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough context to make sense of this article. Will reconsider if article expanded. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Looks like a complete hoax to me. South Bay (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE DELETE DELETE! no sourcing and after a google search I found "Heer ranja" and somebody's user name. BBBBBBBIG thumbs down. Fatmanandlittleboy (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)fatmanandlittleboy[reply]
Comment- For future reference, I think one delete might suffice :]. Keep up the good editing! --FingersOnRoids 01:00, 26 March 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: all towns are inherantly notable (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 18:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson, Utah[edit]

Jackson, Utah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The notability of the event [in this article] is questionable in reference to Wikipedia policy (as the sources I have found so far are very small in number), but it's clear that "the explosion and destruction of Jackson, Utah" is the only event this town is notable for. At worst, remove it for not meeting the "independent sources" guideline, at best, move this to an article on the actual explosion, not the city. Spring12 (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It was a real place, and thus notable, plus it has a reliable source. Edward321 (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All town are inherently notable and this town is no exception, regardless if anyone thinks a railroad explosion "is the only event this town is notable for." I created the article Midland, California and so far I can't find the slightest newsworthy event that took place there, but it's still notable. --Oakshade (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- this appears to be a ghost town now, and according to my standards, I'd like to have proof that it was once incorporated, akin to a rotten borough. Its existence has been verified by an article from The New York Times, the gold standard of reliable sourcing. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 24 March 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 01:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louĺe[edit]

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

Unverifiable. It could be referring to Loulé, but the description suggests it is the other side of Albufeira, also the name contains the letter "ĺ" which doesn't appear to be used in Portuguese. —Snigbrook 23:31, 23 March 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, G7 by User:Dank55. Lenticel (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of War[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC; as far as I can tell, it is autobiographical in nature too. Seegoon (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even though the claim is made that they are incredibly creative, there are no references to back up this bold assertion. And no record deal. And no records. I haven't looked far enough down the page to see if they have a MySpace, but it really doesn't matter. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've nominated the drummer's bio for speedy. Significance not established, and yes, WP:AUTOBIO appears to be an issue. 99.184.128.247 (talk) 23:33, 23 March 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

‡biblios.net[edit]

‡biblios.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn website. Eolld (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it does "...describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers..." --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:59, 23 March 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. BJTalk 09:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MyNetResearch[edit]

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

nn website. Eolld (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/Weak Delete I declined the speedy because I think there's enough to avoid a speedy but there doesn't appear to be enough RS coverage of the website apart from press reviews and blog coverage. StarM 03:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unable to verify notability due to blog and self-published sources. -- samj inout 12:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete with no prejudice against later re-creation. Notability is not established (or borderline at best); because it is commercial view one of WP:TIND takes precedence for me. 9Nak (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After Google searches I was unable to find any reliable sources with which to establish notability. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 27 March 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. BJTalk 09:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming Radio Network[edit]

Gaming Radio Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn website. Eolld (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Editor has had time to establish notability and failed to do so, just another minor website trying to use wiki for publicity. TurningWork (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no sign of notability. Until there is reliable third party source this article fail Notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyWalker (talk • contribs) 14:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it's verification that the creation of this document has been authorised by the Gaming Radio Network then I as a member of staff from the Gaming Radio Network can confirm that authorisation has been given. If it is being said that the website isn't enough proof that GRN is an active community then that is incorrect as well. We are running two radio stations which have an active community through our forums and IRC channels. Additionally we have had various interviews with developers which can also be accessed from the site. User:Shnooter —Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • No, what's being questioned is whether GRN passes Wikipedia's notability guideline, which is specifically focused on coverage in reliable secondary sources. IE, has the network been the subject of press articles etc. Someoneanother 19:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Existence is not equivalent to notability. We're not questioning that it exists. MuZemike 22:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The data contained in those references seems to be supplied by the gameing radio network admins themselves, so I'm not really sure they can be counted as secondary sources for the perpose of establishing notability. TurningWork (talk) 23:53, 25 March 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 as A7.

The Philosophical Perfection[edit]

The Philosophical Perfection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn website. Eolld (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A7 speedy delete as an article about a website that does not assert notability. So tagged. HeureusementIci (talk) 23:53, 23 March 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. BJTalk 09:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GPS-Trace[edit]

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

nn website. Eolld (talk) 23:13, 23 March 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. BJTalk 09:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elegant Exponents[edit]

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

The article does not seem to meet notability guidelines. It also appears to be original research and a simple howto. I put on a prod but it was removed without explanation and I was asked to leave the article or do an AfD. Dmcq (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as how-to. Useful content can be placed in Exponentiation but the name isn't viable as a redirect. HeureusementIci (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge without redirect. I deprod'ed it without explanation, but that's specifically allowed as part of the prod process; sometimes its good to start a discussion. The tone may be how-to, but we could put some of those tables in a subsection of Exponentiation. There's a number of books out there on mental arithmetic that may serve as references. I'm not thrilled with the article title though and dont support a redirect; would also be a good idea to check where this came from. Article is very recently created, and nom has left a message on their userpage. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In WP:prod it says "Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion either in the edit summary, or on the article's talk page." Dmcq (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template says "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason as far as wiki is concerned unless it is written down. WP:prod puts that into step by step how to do it terms. Just saying you don't like prods would be a reason. Dmcq (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This sort of thing can go on Wikibooks, maybe. Random tips for fast mental calculation don't really belong in an encyclopedia. (On the other hand, if there's a mental calculation article, that's a worthy encyclopedic topic, and the page creator might want to re-contribute one or two examples from this page at that location — but without a merge requiring a redirect.) --Trovatore (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there might be something worth including in mental calculation but it would need sources to show that these techniques have a wide use. --Salix (talk): 20:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article name appears to be the author's invention, as Googling "elegant exponents" does not seem to turn up any hits for this subject. The content (but not the prose) seems to be appropriate for mental calculation. Ozob (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge without redirect. squidfryerchef is correct on this matter. Fatmanandlittleboy (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)fatmanandlittleboy[reply]
    • Comment you can't do that. Well, technically, you can, but it's a huge pain, because you have to find some way to satisfy the attribution requirements of the GFDL (normally the history of the redirect left behind serves this function). It's not worth it for any content here. However, if the main contributor wishes to re-contribute the content somewhere else, that's acceptable in principle. (Whether the content itself is appropriate in the new location is not a question for us here.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not merge unless there are references proving notability. I doubt that powers of e are a very common or useful topic in mental calculation. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an unsourced howto. Classic example of WP:NOT. RayTalk 01:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Author: concur with delete, however, the same arguements can be made for the "multiplication tables." Suggest changing name to "Counting Number Exponent Table" or similar, and filing it under exponents or as a property of the natural log. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GESICC (talk • contribs) 18:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the above. Re: the author's suggestion on re-naming, I can't find any online hits for "Counting Number Exponent Table", either. ("Multiplication table", by contrast, has around 1.4 million Google hits, which I guess makes it notable). Which journal or other reliable source was this published in?Anaxial (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 27 March 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 Bibliomaniac15. Sigma 7 (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Norton AntiVirus/Archive 2[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Talk:Norton AntiVirus/Archive 2 (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Norton AntiVirus/Archive 2|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Redid archive of talk page, this time preserving edit history. This is just a duplicate which lacks edit history. TechOutsider (talk) 22:34, 23 March 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. BJTalk 09:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Merritt (songwriter)[edit]

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

apparent vanity page per WP:VANITY, sources are mostly not notable per WP:NOTE, possibly WP:FANCRUFT Aurush kazeminitalk 22:23, 23 March 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. BJTalk 09:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Haigh[edit]

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

Another woman suing over abuse by a priest. Whilst the phenomenon is notable, the individual victim is not, sorry. This is news for a bit and forget stuff, (1EBLP) - not "record for ever in a bio". (The individual claims and details in this are also without direct referencing, but that's beside the point). Scott Mac (Doc) 22:20, 23 March 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. BJTalk 09:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Ball[edit]

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

Contested prod. WP:MADEUP. Non-notable game / no evidence to support description or actual existence. CultureDrone (talk) 22:19, 23 March 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. BJTalk 09:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Smith (American Footballer)[edit]

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

fails WP:ATHLETE, and just not notable enough for us yet. Rodhullandemu 22:11, 23 March 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.

Gnosticism in modern times[edit]

The result was Procedural keep (non-admin closure). There is no deltion rationale and thus no basis for discussion. I42 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gnosticism in modern times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completing incomplete AfD process started by user:Wikimonster007. Please consider me neutral until I indicate otherwise below. (Artw (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm rather new to Wikipedia, but is this article being considered for deletion because the citations don't have page numbers? I'm very confused. Shouldn't that be a cleanup tag rather than a deletion one?
Also, why isn't this page showing up on the daily roundup for deleted articles? Father.rassbach (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also confused.. why is this being considered for deletion? Is there a reason all the articles on modern Gnosticism are being targeted? To me, improper citations don't merit complete deletion without at least a chance to clean up the article first. I'd really like an explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicxanulo (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 March 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. BJTalk 09:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saints' Songs.[edit]

Saints' Songs. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOBJ and violates WP:NOT#LYRICS, one source, which seems not to be third-party. Possibly original research as I cannot find on the source, where the songs are located.  The Windler talk  21:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - only reference is a fansite. People go to watch a game of football, while they are there they sing songs, nothing notable about either the behaviour or these particular songs. pablohablo. 21:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:OR. Only reference is a supporters forum. I found the song list, btw, but there is nothing to indicate source/origins/author etc.  florrie  13:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable, violates lyrics, no respected third source. GW(talk) 00:27, 25 March 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Tallinn[edit]

List of bus routes in Tallinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As was decided by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Taichung bus routes this is indiscriminate information. A "keep" vote based on a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument was given short shift in that debate and I hope not to see any more of them here. Benefix (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Factual notable information. Certainly doesn't fall under the not a travel guide criteria, which it would do if it included frequencies and stops etc (which it doesnt). Can't see any real reason for deletion. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense is it "indiscriminate information" and which policy or guideline supports deletion?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a very sloppy nomination based on the result of a separate nomination. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a nomination from a self-confessed WP:SPA (see nominator's userpage). But that doesn't make him/her automatically wrong, which is why I asked for more information.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete- although it's not explicitly mentioned there, common sense would suggest that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a bus timetable. Reyk YO! 22:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Please explain how this article is a bus timetable?! Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are right. A bus timetable would have a list of routes and times at which the buses run on those routes. This article is even less than that. Amending my vote to "strong delete" accordingly. Reyk YO! 22:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your logic is very questionable! You are voting delete for an article that ticks all of WP's boxes? Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You mean like Wikipedia is not a directory? Reyk YO! 22:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Can't see anything there that would sentence this article to death. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • You seem to be saying that any kind of directory that isn't explicitly forbidden by WP:NOTDIR is actually acceptable. That's not my interpretation. Benefix (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well you don't seem to give a specific reason for deleting this article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reyk, what's your view on the other articles in Category:Lists of Bus Routes? (Disclaimer:This is not a WP:OTHERCRAP argument to keep the article, it's a question to determine whether it would be better to expand the debate.)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a huge fan, but they're not up for deletion and I am certainly not going to mass-nominate them. Reyk YO! 02:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good basis for building upon; I see no policy reason to delete. --  Chzz  ►  23:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Chzz. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appropriate list. Significant element of any city. If we decided otherwise for some particular city, we should revisit the articles involved DGG (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per DGG, as an appropriate list; listcruft would be stuff like an actual schedule, or a list of the managers of the Talinn Bus Company. No policy has been given for deletion, other than pride in being right and not caring for the content. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC) By way of comparison, here are three AfDs that I closed a year and a half ago, with a deletion for "listcrufty things":[reply]
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historical people portrayed as villains
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of USAF Intelligence Wings assgned to Strategic Air Command
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheap calls and their providers. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Another example is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistani lawyers rankings. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well one policy is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I'm sorry for not linking to it in my nomination for those of you who are unfamiliar with it. Participants in the previous discussion quite understandably felt that this was so obvious it needed no further explanation, but perhaps the clinching question was "is it notable history?" to which there was no answer. What we see in the keep !votes this time around is handwaving like "appropriate" and "significant" but nothing to back it up. I feel the WP:BURDEN lies on you to demonstrate why this belongs in an encyclopedia. Of course if you wish you can rely on your overwhelming numerical superiority this time but I would like to remind you that these are discussions and not votes or opinion polls. Benefix (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the burden lies with the nominator do give valid reasons for deletion of an article. If you don't want this to be a vote, then don't call it a vote.. simple! You cite WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but there is actually *nothing* there to suggest this article should be deleted. Lets go through what is covered there in order:
      1. FAQ - Its not exactly an FAQ, this doesn't cover it
      2. Plot Summary - Nope, nothing here
      3. Lyrics Database - Bus routes aren't exactly songs.
      4. Statistics - Nope not here either, its just a list of bus routes
      5. 'News Report - Certainly not this either.
      • Please actually cite a valid argument. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7 (no indication of notability for author), WP:SNOW, WP:CRYSTAL. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Twilight Rune[edit]

The Twilight Rune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased and apparently uncompleted book by a non-notable author. Article had been PRODed, then dePRODed by the article's author. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, notability is neither asserted nor present, no reliable sources, etc. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:CRYSTAL. Book isn't releasing til 2010, this is all just speculation. Radiant chains (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. JNW (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CRYSTAL + no indication of publisher. I have distinct suspicions about this. Next, in 10 pages of Google results I can only find one book fair in Haddington. This one was at Haddington Infants school, and it raised £780. My congratulations to them. I feel it would be an unlikely venue for announcing a new fantasy series, though. There appear to be 0 ghits for Jera Peachy, so the announcement doesn't seem to have been particularly noted. As is often the case with these book announcements in Wikipedia, I hope the book is better written and proofed than the article. Peridon (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised what the Plot summary stirred up in my mind. Lewis Carroll's Bruno and the way he told a story. Peridon (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since this is not notable--and it doesn't even exist. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotion of vanity item. --TS 16:28, 25 March 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:SNOW MBisanz talk 08:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Oakley[edit]

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

Delete fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - wrong Paul Oakley :) (its worth noting the original AfD was not regarding the same subject) Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO, and possibly WP:V, as it is unsourced and I can't find anything to verify it. Article could probably be speedily deleted (CSD A1 or A7). —Snigbrook 20:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I searched for notability under WP:ACADEMIC (if he's a decorated professor) and can't find that he teaches at either schools mentioned in the article. Otherwise he fails WP:BIO. OlYellerTalktome 21:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unable to find sources. Not an uncommon name so difficult to be certain that I'm not missing something, but in these situations, there is some onus on the creator to provide context. Bongomatic 01:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I tried, failed to WP:V. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:06, 27 March 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. BJTalk 09:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse (Toni Braxton album)[edit]

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

Unreleased album with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Sole source is of dubious reliability and only verifies the record label she is signed to (pretty much fails WP:V as well). TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:08, 23 March 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. Per G4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rayko/KRB. Use deletion review if you disagree with the previous deletion. SoWhy 09:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rayko/KRB[edit]

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

Band article that demonstrates no evidence of notability per WP:BAND Astronaut (talk) 19:40, 23 March 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 Olympic Airlines article already contains a description of the sale. BJTalk 10:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Airlines Privatization[edit]

Olympic Airlines Privatization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete and merge acceptable content to Olympic Airlines - article needs major rewite to be neutral and encyclopedic - currently reads like a POV fork. Contains original research and synthesis. Mfield (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to improve it.Schwertleite (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After I saw the recent cleanup of the article I change my vote to:

  • Delete and merge acceptable content to Olympic Airlines. Dr.K. logos 15:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would say merge, but all of it is covered with more detail at Olympic Airlines. Thanks, Genius101Guestbook 19:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. The ongoing privatization of Olympic is an interesting case of management failure by the Greek state and and so it is interesting on its own, apart from the history of Olympic itself. It is a show case for the longstanding question "public or private", whose importance is far greater than the fate of Olympic itself. It is certainly untrue that "all of it is covered with more detail at Olympic Airlines". In fact, this claim contradicts the other claims about lack of neutrality. Concerning neutrality, please include other points of view. Schwertleite (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. Several changes have been made to address concerns of neutrality.85.72.178.92 (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. No more traces of synthesis.77.49.102.162 (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It is no more true that the article "may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable with the given sources".85.72.178.92 (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the bits I have just removed. "This is a long awaited development by many" and "The Olympic Airlines case has been a case of company mismanagement after nationalization by the Greek state", neither of which are neutral or attributed, rather they have been inferred. Mfield (Oi!) 14:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment with a major rewrite and trim, the article now has got past some of the original problems. Now what we have is a neutral presentation of confirmable facts which is what an encyclopedia article should be. Thing is, there is not enough material to really justify a stand alone article, a problem that stems in part from their not being enough viewpoints represented. What are the implications, what of the future, what are labor unions saying etc. etc. As it stands it could easily be merged into Olympic Airlines. The alternative is to make it more comprehensive, right now it is just another click that readers have to make. Mfield (Oi!) 15:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. All this information can easily be merged in the main article. The main article can accomodate this material without the need to have a separate article as per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. If in the future the subject matures and more information becomes available it could become an independent article. Dr.K. logos 15:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is no needfor a separate article, Ut would do better & be more easily findable within the main articlesDGG (talk) 16:14, 24 March 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) 17:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Cavella[edit]

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

Minor character who appears in two arcs (and @8 issues in total) of the punisher's 30+ year history. Is Garth Ennis a master when it comes to writing the Punisher? yes. Is the story that Cavalla appears in thrilling and chilling? yes it is. Is Cavella the subject of multiple reliable sources secondary sources? nope. Is he the subject of cultural readings? nope. is the character anything more than a run of the mill "guy for the punisher to shoot in the guts and live to die in the woods?" nope. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the article should stay put. Many other characters who have appeared in minor roles have their own Wikipedia pages, such as Loony Bin Jim, who only appeared in a film and no comics, and Barracuda, who appeared in three story arcs and an upcoming videogame. It is also worth mentioing that Cavella is romoured to be a villain in the upcoming Punisher: War Zone sequel, should it be made. We learn more about Cavella than any other villain in the Punisher Max series, as many of the other villains did not have detailed backstories as he did. For example:
In In the Beginning Cavella is the driving force behind the story as he sets most of the events into motion. We learn very little about the other villains who appeared in the story (Ink, Pittsy, Laurence Barruci and Massimo Cesare), for instance we do not learn Inks first name and only very little about his and Pittsys past. In Kitchen Irish, we again learn little about the main villains (Maginty and Finn Cooley), and their backstories, exept that Cooley have is Irish, has a nephew and damaged his face by setting his bomb off too early, and that Maginty is Irish and was racially abused. Although the villain Zarkahov, who appeared in the Mother Russia and Man of Stone story arcs had a fairly fleshed out backstory, we do not learn as much about him as we did Cavella, and we never get a narrative through his point of view, as we did with Cavella. The two slavers, Cristu and Tiberiu Bulat, also only have very limited backstories. The generals in Valley Forge, Valley Forge are also not paricularly prominent characters as we learn very little of them individually. The widows in widowmaker had fairly detailed backstories although their husbands appear as more prominent villains than they do. Rawlins is the character who appears in the most storyarcs, and we learn a lot about his backstory, although he was usually portrayed as being a relatively minor character. Barracuda could be argued as being of the same importance as Cavella, as he appears as the main atagonist in two story arcs and his own spinoff series, in which he was the protagonist. Similar to Cavella, at one point the story is told through his narrative (when the Punisher has him tied up in the car) although we learn very little of his early life or backstory, we do not even know his real name.
Therefore, I believe that Cavella is the most prominent villain apearing in Garth Ennis's run on Punisher Max, and therefore, like all self respectin Marvel villans, deserves his own Wikipedia article. I do not belive that he is nothing but a run of the mill guy for the punisher to shoot in the guts and live to die in the woods, I believe that the whole purpose of his actions were to test the boundaries of man made evil, and also to see how far the Punisher would go when pushed hard enough. If you believe that there are notr enough secondary sources on the article than why not go and find some? Lastly, it did take a long time to create the article and I was very proud of it, so I will be disapointed if it is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor 155 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But by that logic, about 50% of the characters in the Ennis Max run would have their own pages because of the intertextuality that occurs between arcs - yet none of them are covered by reliable indepedent sources. There is much discussion about Ennis's writing but with a couple of exceptions none of them have the critical readings or analysis that provide the basis for an article. The articles would be purely (as this article is) plot summaries because we cannot discuss them in terms of their cultural impact or their impact to the narrative - because we's don't have the "bricks" to build that house. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sounds like a significant character in a notable work of fiction to me. And since when do you nominate a character from Marvel comic books for deletion anyway? If you succeed in deleting this one, will you go after other characters from articles that have been around for years, but who don't have any third party media references? In fact, how many characters would actually meet that requirement, if any at all? Notable comics/manga cartoons/anime have character pages. Dream Focus 21:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about manga characters, I do however own every punisher comic every published and in over the 600+ issues I own this character appears as a supporting character in one arc and a main character in another arc. He doesn't appear in any of the reference works I own about the character, He doesn't appear in any of the more generalist marvel reference sources I own or any of the scholarly resources I have on the character. I cannot see how he is significant from any of the sources I have access to. Could you expand what it is about the text or the secondary sources *you* have access to that makes him notable? You seem to be suggesting we have a separate article for every single character who has every appeared in a marvel comic. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is enough information to fill its own article, then yes, no reason not to have it. If it was only just a paragraph mention or something, then I'd say combine it with other minor characters. Dream Focus 21:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and transwiki (as it seems a shame to lose the information). There is no demonstration of notability (to satisfy WP:FICT) and no real out-of-universe coverage (to satisfy WP:WAF) - all we have is a retelling of the plot. Barracuda (comics) and Loony Bin Jim are mentioned in comparison - the latter should just be redirected to the film article as it adds nothing extra there (and fails similar guidelines) and the former has been the focus of their own limited series (so there is a more potential for sources and discussion of the character development) but that is still pretty poor, just with more potential for improvement. All that said, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument - we are discussing what to do with all the comics characters failing the various guidelines - we will be merging a lot to minor character articles and I can see this character being one that will appear there but it would still be trimmed right back. So transwiki to the Marvel Comics wikia as, whatever happens, this can't survive in the form it is in. (Emperor (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete due to an almost total lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. This is the best I could find and I don't think it's enough because it's just one short opinion piece from a site that I'm not sure carries a lot of weight. Reyk YO! 22:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of references. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as significant character. No objection to combining it with others in a combination article,which ought to be the default here. Was it considered? I note that the current status of WP:FICT is questionable, and the specific wording with respect to the possible requirement of external sourcing for character notability the most disputed part of it., At the present state of the discussion there, one could justify almost any decision by claiming support from WP:FICT DGG (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what's significant about him? how is he significant? How have scholarly or cultural or media sources discussed this? He's the badguy of the week in a very very very well told story but that's all he is. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most comic book characters, or even comic books themselves, are never reviewed anywhere. So you can't expect everyone to take that notability guideline/suggestion seriously. The comic book is successful, plenty of people read it, and thus the characters within it are notable if there is enough information about them, or they have done a significant event. Dream Focus 19:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that somehow WP:GNG just don't apply here? Although you haven't actually said why. Notability isn't inherited or you could start an article on any character who has appeared in a popular comic book. There clearly has to be a limit on this kind of thing and this character is falling well below such limit. (Emperor (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
This is an example of special pleading. Reyk YO! 23:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no credible postulation of out-of-universe significance or notability. DGG misses the point completely. Notability within a fictional context does not equal encyclopedic notability. That has been maintained by the vast majority of editors at WP:FICT, a few stubborn voices of opposition notwithstanding. Eusebeus (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say just the opposite about the discussions there. Notability within a fictional content has been recognised by a wide range of contributors there except a few individuals who are still trying to prevent the establishment of the consensus. DGG (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete ficitional character with no independent notability established that would justify an encyclopedia article on the fictional character. Fails GNG.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:23, 28 March 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) 17:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Stratford[edit]

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

general lack of notability, paucity or non-existence of legitimate resources Wikimonster007 (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete- per WP:N. There appears to be very little substantial coverage in independent sources. Reyk YO! 21:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weird to be doing this to a page about oneself, but I've corrected some basic errors and the article now has references to numerous third parties. It's really the links themselves that may be of interest to researchers rather than the biographical data. But the book link, interviews, newspaper and magazine reviews and college course citations may be of use to those poking around the subject of Gnosticism.Jordanstratford (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete- per WP:N. If someone could find some better references, I'd be willing to look at this again. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:RS, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Stratford is a major proponent of the idea that Gnosticism comes out of pre-christian pagan antiquity. Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy are proponents of the idea that Christianity is a pagan offshoot, and other authors have referenced an influence of Pagan antiquity on Gnosticism, but only Stratford draws a direct line between Paganism and Gnosticism, a controversial stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Father.rassbach (talk • contribs) 16:08, 26 2009 (UTC) — Father.rassbach (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• WP:N may certainly be an issue, but WP:RS is quite clearly satisfied. It's only the sources themselves, ultimately, that are of use. Jordanstratford (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I cannot find any independent sources establishing notability other than this. --Killing Vector (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indepdenent sources establishing notability in article or findable by me. Fallis BIO.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:43, 28 March 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kumiki Gibson[edit]

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

The subject is non-notable, the text only lists different jobs, without saying why that was really important. Besides, the article is constantly used for edit-warring and WP:BLP violations. PaterMcFly (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I am quite sick of watching this article, I should point out that it gets about 200 views per month. –xeno (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject appears to be sufficiently notable. ←Spidern→ 18:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability and sources are OK. Problems with content and editors isn't a reason to delete. Gigs (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was "Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights" -- which makes her notable AFAIAC. The last paragraph does read like a puff piece, though, & it would help the article if its tone were improved. -- llywrch (talk) 23:13, 26 March 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. BJTalk 10:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anirban Mitra[edit]

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

non-notable autobiography --Docku: What's up? 17:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interim comment: the article appears to be spam-related. However, there is at least something (newspaper website article) to the claims for this chap. -- Hoary (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete While there is a source that shows that the subject is an amateur photographer whose book was released by some dignitaries (arguably because the subject of the book was the Governor's mansion, rather than notability of the photographer), the available sources do not satisfy the standards of WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. Abecedare (talk) 17:59, 25 March 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. BJTalk 10:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrrell Eiland[edit]

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

Article is lacking good sources and is rife with redlinks, neither of which bode well for this person's notability. Powers T 17:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in regards to redlinks, you are referring to Jewish-Conservative (I think meant to point to Conservative Jewish movement)? Ottre 17:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as well as the redlink categories. Powers T 19:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Why delete this page when the person is a declared candidate for office, there are several people editing this page. so leave and allow the authors to complete the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avity (talk • contribs) 06:33, 27 March 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. BJTalk 10:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koljunak[edit]

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

Crap, no results on a google search, spam, drivel and poorly written The Rolling Camel (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Do not bite the newcomers. I42 (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They have many cool houses there? Google search: [4] The Rolling Camel (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Flagging the article for deletion two minutes after the stub was created by a new user was a bit quick. Before taking this action the first step is to drop a note to the author explaining what they should do to make this a "keepable" article. Being new to Wikipedia, they may not even be watching it. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regardless of the newb biting issue, unless this is a misspelling of something, not much chance for notability. Gigs (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could well be an incorrect transliteration from the Armenian alphabet. Maybe the correct spelling is kôlǰunak῾or something. The author should be given a bit of time to fix it up - more than two minutes. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you seem to think that this village exists, AFD gives you 5 days to verify that with a reliable source. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on. I have no idea if the place exists but it may, perhaps with a different (e.g. Turkish) name now. My concern is the speed with which it was put into AfD with no warning to the author. There is no reason for such haste. The author may have only limited access to the Internet, perhaps one day a week. If so, by the time they get back on to expand the article, they will find that it has disappeared. What is the hurry? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if a article is nominated for deletion, the author can still edit it. But the author has not been active since the article was created. The Rolling Camel (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this village does not exist; or, if it does, there is no way of verifying that it does. If someone can verify its existence, I would change to keep as all villages are inherently notable (but only those which are real). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--but Camel, tone it down, will you please? Drmies (talk) 00:34, 24 March 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. DGG (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Montessori School[edit]

Modern Montessori School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability of the school not established, and simply being a Montessori School is not notable. It also happens to be "accredited" through a Montessori association started by the same person who started and heads the school, and not by a third-party Montessori accreditor like the IMAC [5]. IB affiliation isn't really a unique factor either; it's just not that big in certain countries. MSJapan (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - article cites no reliable third party sources that are independant of the subject, which is the standard per WP:ORG. Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, a quick Google search turned up a few sources: [6], [7]. Not sure if any of those are reliable so I'm not going to vote keep or delete. Tavix (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - ISBI has no information save the name of the school (for example, age range is listed as 0-0, no enrollment figures, no head of school listed, etc.), so I wouldn't consider it useful or reliable because it's incorrect. I don't think the ISBI site (which allows schools to send in whatever info they want as per the note at the bottom of the page) counts as RS or independent. In short, the sources are not pertinent to notability, only existence. To address the systemic bias comment below, if it's a school in Jordan that gives classes in English in order to comply with IB standards, why does its supposed greater presence in non-English sources matter to its notability? It's catering to an English-speaking clientele, so it should have more hits in English than any other language. MSJapan (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found by Tavix. Furthermore, this school teaches students from 3 to 18-years-old, which means it is a primary school and secondary school. All high schools are notable. Cunard (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: there is no such consensus. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Has any verifiable HS been deleted in the last year? If not, I'd at least say this is the de facto consensous. Hobit (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as with all high schools sufficient sources to meet WP:ORG will be available. Jordanian schools don't have a good Internet presence, in English, on the Internet so local and Arabic sources should be researched and added to avoid systemic bias. TerriersFan (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TerriersFan, we generally keep HSs because they can reasonably be expected to have sources enough to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 16:48, 24 March 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 per WP:SNOW, obviously unencyclopedic. (Non-admin closure). Ottre 18:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

How 14-15 year-old Londoners see computer hardware[edit]

How 14-15 year-old Londoners see computer hardware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

More of an essay topic than a useful article. Unfortunately, does not IMHO really fit any CSD reason. It was PRODed and the prod was doubly endorsed, but the prod was then removed. So it's time to AFD this thing. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - Crap. CSD A1. G1 may also fit. The Rolling Camel (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as nonsense. CSD G1. MSJapan (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I concur that it probably meets speedy deletion criteria, but I think it would be G3 (pure vandalism). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this will probably get snowed upon pretty quickly. Tavix (talk) 17:36, 23 March 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. Tone 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Forget (Demi Lovato's song)[edit]

Don't Forget (Demi Lovato's song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Double article: See Don't Forget (song). The Rolling Camel (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy as duplicate content, and do not redirect (implausible search term). MSJapan (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a duplicate article, if this gets redirected I'd just hit it up at WP:RFD so that isn't a good idea. Tavix (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dup. ←Spidern→ 18:36, 23 March 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) 02:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecclesia Gnostica[edit]

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

Incomplete nomination by 69.143.229.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who states on the article's talk page: Paucity or non-existence of third party sources, despite international scope there are too few members. meco (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to see some better sources. Anyone? Bearian (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many members does this organization need to fulfill meco's personal criteria? Given numerous published works by the head of the organization, its 50+ year history and its immediate membership of a thousand people, how is this not noteworthy? Why are all the articles on contemporary Gnosticism being systematically deleted? What if all the articles on, say, Rastafarianism were flagged for deletion over a 48 hour period? What the hell is going on? - Jordan Stratford —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.155.157 (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly a large seam of articles without at least 2 cites from sources that meet WP:RS has been stumbled onto by editors who like deleting things, and so they’ve gone off on a bit of a spree? That seems to be the way it usually works. The solution, as ever, is to add sources. If you feel sources can be found but need help doing so you could always apply the rescue tag to those articles. Artw (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep A Google News search turns up some coverage that makes this borderline notable: [8]. The article could use a good rewrite, too. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sources available both from Google News and Books. I'm working them into the article right now. -- Shunpiker (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Merge to Stephan A. Hoeller. Many of the references, upon closer inspection, refer to separate organization such as the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica and Rosamunde Miller's Ecclesia Gnostica Mysteriorum. --Shunpiker (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FIXED: Nine third party sources have been added one was deleted that could be re-added and there are more that were not needed to refer to content. I will provide them if 10 sources are not sufficient. Article has been streamlined. Metagignosko (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. The reasons outlined for both sides of the argument here make it impossible to close this debate with any definitive consensus given. One (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judaization of Jerusalem[edit]

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

The article is a WP:POVFORK of content that belongs in Demographics of Jerusalem, History of Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, and several other articles. It is also a WP:SYNTH of various opinion pieces, concocted to promote a thesis. Nudve (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Note The first nomination was probably a Twinkle malfunction. I ask that the admin reviewing this delete it and consider this the first AfD discussion. -- Nudve (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Obvious piece of political POV pushing. Example quote: "Under successive Israeli governments, the attempts to Judaize Jerusalem, obliterate its Palestinian identity and thicken 'Greater Jerusalem' to encompass much of the West Bank, have continued." That is in no way an encyclopedic or neutral treatment. Tiamat: Google hits are not a good guide in this case. The issue is highly politicised and the terminology may well be widely used without the process it describes having an identity distinct from actions already covered in existing, more NPOV articles. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AlexTiefling. I just started working on this article today, and it was created a mere five days ago by Yamaman. The quote you point to as an example of "political POV pushing" was one I added. It comes from an essay by Jeremy Salt included in the book Remaking the Middle East by Paul J. White and William Stewart. Jeremy Salt is "is associate professor in Middle Eastern History and Politics at Bilkent University in Ankara, Turkey. Previously, he taught at Bosporus University in Istanbul and the University of Melbourne in the Departments of Middle Eastern Studies and Political Science. Professor Salt has written many articles on Middle East issues, particularly Palestine, and was a journalist for The Age newspaper when he lived in Melbourne." As per our policies, I am writing the article using WP:RS's. Is Salt not an WP:RS in your opinion? Or do you find his views too offensive for inclusion in our encyclopedia? How does this reconcile with WP:NPOV? Thanks for considering my questions. Tiamuttalk 17:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. While I'm not convinced it would save the article, you could definitely improve it by reporting statements like the one I mentioned as the opinions of their proponents, rather than as fact. I don't find his views particularly offensive (indeed, from what I've seen so far, I might agree with them) - but they are opinions, rather than facts. Accordingly, you should be reporting the fact that a prominent and well-informed person has said these things, rather than stating the opinions themselves directly. It may be that the way forward is to recast this article in terms of the debate as to whether Jerusalem has been (and is) subject to a process of 'Judaization', and as to whether it should be. Sources on all sides can probably be found who are well-regarded in their fields and have significant opinions. But I'm not sure this is a topic where definitive conclusions will be drawn. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding too. You are right that what is expressed in Salt's work in an informed opinion that Israel is enacting a policy of Judaization in Jerusalem. However, its an opinion obviously not exclusive to him, as the sources cited in the article and on the talk page show (and there are many more yet to be added). That is part of why I did not bother attributing it directly to him for the time being. The article is still under development.
You are also right that there are some people who deny and object to the very idea, even viewing it as inherently pejorative, like A.M. Rosenthal in this 1996 piece in the New York Times. But even Rosenthal admits that such words, "have been used in public often." And though he attributes such usage "until recently only by Arabs for whom control of Jerusalem is a goal never to be abandoned and hatred of Jews never forgotten," even he admits that: "Now it pops up in the Western press as a dangerous reality. The Dec. 23 issue of Newsweek, in its news columns, says as a matter of regrettable fact that religious Jews are part of an effort to Judaize Arab East Jerusalem."
So I do understand what you are saying, but I think we can clear up this problem by integrating more sources like Rosenthal's that are deeply critical of the very idea into the article as a counter-balance. Widespread scholarly, and even media, discussion of the "Judaization of Jerusalem" is a fact, admitted even by those who dispute the very validity of the notion. That it is contentious in the eyes of some should certainly be noted in the article and the reasons why should be elaborated upon. I think it is best to do this under the current article title and not as a sub-section of Jerusalem or the Demographics of Jerusalem, where fair coverage of the subject would not be feasible. Tiamuttalk 18:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a battleground. Ordinarily, I'd argue for improving a POV article, not deleting it, but this one seems to be inherently and, convincingly for me, irredeemably set in a POV rut from the outset. Sourced, relevant content can and should be added in a NPOV manner to Jerusalem. Forking here is also undue. --Dweller (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Switch to Keep, see below. --Dweller (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jerusalem is way too long to add mention of this subject there. The topic has ample coverage in scholarly sources (as pointed out on the talk page). Saying something is inherently POV is hardly an argument when we have articles like Pallywood. Tiamuttalk 17:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nudve has argued that the article WP:SYNTH and WP:POVFORK, but has not responded to the evidence indicating the use of this very phrase (and other variations) in hundreds of scholarly works. Obviously WP:SYNTH is not an issue and I think POVFORK claim is weak given the scholarly evidence of the use of the term. It is also arguably covered under Articles whose subject is a POV, for those who want to claim that it is solely that, like A.M. Rosenthal, among others. Tiamuttalk 18:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Unless, of course, we also want to add articles on Islamicization of Jerusalem, detailing the several ethnic cleansings of Jews and Christians under several Muslim administrations of the city, some quite brutal, the declared intentions of several contemporary Muslim leaders to push the Jews form he city, and the ethnic cleansing of all Jews when Jordan controlled the city. We would also need an article on Christianization of Jerusalem, blood flowing in the steets as the Crusaders triumphed, late Ottoman era concessions to western powers, etc. The Islamization article would be far better documented and bloodier than Judaization of Jerusalem because the facts are far worse. We would be documenting judicially unpunished rape and kidnapping of Christian girls (one traditional way to Islamize conquered territory was to kidnap as secondary wives the daughters of Christians and Jews. I have footnotes to this if you want them,) the use of Jewish gravestones as road pavements and ethnic cleansing carried out by the Jordanian Army. Do we really want to go this route?Historicist (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per historicists discussion. To keep means that there would be a need to add Islamicization of Jerusalem.--Jayrav (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the argument being put forward by Jayrav and Historicist is that a false comparison is being made. While the "Judaization of Jerusalem" as a phrase gets hundreds of google book hits as outlined in my first comment above, "Islamicization of Jerusalem" gets zero. Creating an article on the Islamicization of Jerusalem would be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Now "Christianization of Jerusalem" does get 22 google book hits, and these are mostly in reference to the establishment of early Christianity in the region, which is covered in our article on Christianization. Judaization of Jerusalem is a topic for which there are hundreds, if not thousands of scholarly sources that use this very phrase to refer to an ongoing Israeli government policy or process. Those seeking to turn Wikipedia into battlefield are those threatening to create SYNTH, OR articles, in a WP:POINT-making exercise, simply because they don't like this topic. Tiamuttalk 18:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tiamet, I do sometimes wonder if you are deliberately disingenuous, or did it truly not occur to you that there would be a number of ways to label the concept that there have been deliberate attempts to make the city Muslim? "Islamization of Jerusalem" gets lots of hits. "Islamification" and "Jerusalem" googled together as keywords turn up interesting sources. I am sure there are other phrases, not to mention the pharses that could be found in other languages. You are correct in the narrow sense. The article would probably be named "Islamization of Jerusalem" But, uses of the concept and phraze of Islamizing Jerusalem? Scads. In sources that are scholarly and that go back many centuries.Historicist (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Historicist, I am not being "deliberately disingenous". I merely did the search using the term you proposed and not its alternate permutations. But now that you have raised the issue, "Islamization of Jerusalem" gets 7 google book hits. "Islamification" and "Jerusalem" get 12 google book hits but looking at them more closely, most are not referring to the "Islamification of Jerusalem", but rather "Islamification" processes elsewhere, like in Gaza or Nazareth, with Jerusalem mentioned in passing. If you feel there is sufficient information for an article on "Islamization of Jerusalem" without resorting to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, by all means, go ahead.
What I do know is that there are tonnes of scholarly and media sources referring to the "Judaization of Jerusalem", which go to the trouble of defining it and not just using it (i.e. secondary and not primary sources). This subject should not be WP:CENSORed by using vague threats of battles, making false claims of WP:SYNTH or engaging in side arguments. The subject is notable and its coverage is in line with our policies. If the article is imperfect now, fix it. It's only been around 5 days. Tiamuttalk 19:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh… Judaization of Jerusalem is a concept of recent popularity in anti-Israel circles. The word “Judaize” is an old term referring to the attraction of some Christians to Jewish theology and practice. This old term has been put to a new political use in the last couple of decades, almost exclusively by individuals, some with university appointments, who are outspoken opponents of the existence of the State of Israel. Islamization is an old coinage referring to the spread of Islam, both political and religious. There is a large literature going back centuries and covering most of the world. If we are to go this route, it would be equally useful to have articles on the Islamisation of Constantinople the Islamisation of Budapest the Islamisation of France – we can cover the globe! User:Tiamut’s first sleight of hand is to confine her searches to a phrase in parentheses “i.e. Islamisation of Jerusalem. When a phrase becomes useful as a political tool to a particular party, it can be found in quotations, as Judaization of Jerusalem. With the centuries-long transformation of Jerusalem into a Muslim city, the sources are not polemicists hurling slogans, but scholars (and some polemicists) documenting the long process of unequal laws, deportations, preferential in-migration of Muslims, and, yes, kidnapping, forced conversion, forced marriage, economic disadvantage causing unequal procreational success, elite population replacement (a term of art describing situations wherein a conquering group gets to out-procreate everyone else, causing an ethnic shift in a large population) and ethnic cleansing that deliberately sought the transformation of Jerusalem into a Muslim city. User: Tiamut’s second sleight of hand is to fail to include. the many spellings of the concept: “Islamization” Islamisation” “Islamicisation” Islamicization” “islamification” “Muslimization” I am certain that there are more. What you find is you do a series of diligent searchs, or, indeed, if you know the literature, is a large literature covering many centuries of policies by a series of Muslim governments to achieve the Islamization of Jerusalem. But, you have to treat it as a topic, not a phrase. And, of course, accept that the historiography of the pre-modern Middle East is woefully inadequate. What I am trying to avoid here is a series of angry articles. If we have the Judaization of Jerusalem an avalanche of Islamization articles will legitimately follow. How would we argue against a Greek nationalist who wanted to wirte on Islamization of Constantinople if we allow the Judaization of Jerusalem? User:Tiamut sees this as a threat. It is merely a prediction. The Islamizaton of Smyrna and the Islamization of Armenia should be particularly fun to police for POV. The material belongs in a more comprehensive and balanced articles. I just looked at Great Fire of Smyrna It is lousy with POV special pleading, a good example of the extreme difficulty of producing and maintaining wikipedia articles on contested national terrain. As I asked before, do we really want to go here? This material, after all, could form a short paragraph in a more balanced article on Jerusalem.Historicist (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. An important and controversial subject that could be a substantial article if appropriate sources are used. Ian Pitchford (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's one of the most frequent topics in Israeli newspapers, the events described are of a weekly order. Something that often in the news, and so frequently mentioned in serious books by ranking Israeli historians (Meron Benvenisti in his City of Stone etc.). The phrase has been around since the late 60s, and this accounts for the extensive literature on it. Why delete an article that must cover something that has attracted an extensive secondary literature. (Michael Dumper's book The Politics of Sacred Space lists quite a few studies on this, Oren Yiftachel's ethnocracy, idem. Historicist's arguments are all about past history, and therefore the comparison is misplaced. The Judaisation programme is something going on for some decades, the object of intensive often monographic studies and articles, by sociologists, historians of landscape etc.. Silwan's 1500 inhabitants, under the wall, have just got their marching orders. Deleting looks, for the moment, distinctly, like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and nothing more.Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past. If we do this, I expect articles on the Islamization of Bosnia Islamization of Baghdad Islamization of Indonesia Islamization of NIgeria and, of course, the Islamization of EuropeHistoricist (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, will three more articles to wiki's 2,700,000 articles upset anyone, if this is (as it isn't, a precedent? What's the fear? By the way, I live and regularly travel in a few European countries: my next door neighbour is a Muslim, as is the local grocer, and pizza-maker. While blogs rave, esp. in America, and Samuel Huntington aficionados go ballistic, these people learn the language, speak the local dialect, and, apart from the Northern League's antiSemitic provocations, get on well with everyone. I'd welcome such an article, since there's quite a large literature, some of its serious, most of it pertaining to the politics of scare. Your one argument sounds like a wiki weigh-watcher alarm. Too many articles! Then why pick on this one?Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many highly politicized articles inthe area of nationalism, articles that, like Judaizing Jerusalem, aim not to inform, but to attack a competing ethnic group. We try to stem the tendency to turn Wikipedia into an ethnic battleground by redirecting articles like this to more larger articles where the information can be part of a more nuanced treatment of a topic.Historicist (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to see an I/P article that is close to NPOV. Most editors here edit from a highly politicized and indeed ethnic perspective.Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ian Pitchford. Wodge (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interesting subject but blatantly POV at the moment will no real WP:RS and poor writing. Historicist has a point that leaving an article like this would invite many other "Islamization of ABC" articles. But why stop at Jerusalem, when an article could be written about the 'Judaization of the Galilee' and 'Judaization of Palestine'. Don't forget to open a special cat for all these articles. --Shuki (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an entirely one-sided article that clearly mischaracterizes many elements of the issue. Statements such as Har Homa "lays siege to the Christian Palestinian communities of Beit Sahour and Bethlehem" and that "Ever since israeli occupation of Al-Aqsa Mosque, ... the mosque has been under constant threats" are just a few of the statements that betray a clear lack of the NPOV tone absent from this article. I fail to see how a re-write would add any of the needed balance. Alansohn (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are arguments for more editing, not for deletion. If this is the criterion, then 90% of I/P articles would be up for deletion. NPOV is a goal, and most articles here fail it.Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I have been editing to try to get it up to par. I urge those who cite some of the POV wording to re-read the article as it is now, and keep in mind it will only improve further as more editors get involved in editing it. Tiamuttalk 02:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - not only does this article need a full rewrite to have NPOV wording, the very title/subject of the article is inherently POV. One could argue for the inclusion of an article called Arabization of Jerusalem (not sure about Islamization), because it is known that when Jews started building outside the walls in the 19th century, suddenly Arab started doing so as well. However, this would still be a POV article because it is a collection of loosely-related information from loosely-related sources, and it was the basis for deleting more than one of the Allegations of X Apartheid articles. Moreover, I have not seen any evidence that there was ever a concentrated plan to 'Judaize' Jerusalem, unlike early plans by Ben Gurion and Mapai to bring more Jews to the Galilee and Negev (which should not be called 'Judaization' either, but at least the concept there is real). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is an article that has been up 5 days. No one disliking it seems to want to improve it by editing. The subject is disliked, therefore it is proposed for deletion. If you haven't seen any evidence of a plan, as opposed to consistently applied policies over the last twenty years, where do you live, and what do you read. Just on Alansohn's Har Homa, there is a dozen pages if I remember in Menachem Klein's Jerusalem dealing with the international repercussions, the violent protests from Arafat, King Hussein, the UN, with Clinton even intervening on that project in the late 90s. Studies in urban space dealing with Jerusalem frequently refer to its judaization. Even secular Israelis complain of its 'judaization'! Come on, you guys. Give the article a month or two, and the editors a chance to bring it up to snuff. Help edit it. Kerrist! Five days, and massive deletion campaigns!Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete' - This is a clear WP:POVFORK, the material belongs in other articles (i.e., Demographics of Jerusalem - Epson291 (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious POV fork. JFW | T@lk 23:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A clear POV fork. Any useful info might be merged into Demographics of Jerusalem or History of Jerusalem, if it is written in a neutral way. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The WP:POVFORK sticks out. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though perhaps rename. An important subject, which routinely gets international press coverage. Here are two articles from The Economist, for example: [9], [10]. Suggestions that this is a POV fork are wide of the mark. The article Demographics of Jerusalem presents only numbers; it does not consider political, legal and social drivers, and any attempt to add such discussion is considered out of scope; while the article History of Jerusalem affords only seven lines on the subject - not enough to fully explore all angles and points of view of the topic, but any more would be disproportionate in an article covering 3,500 years of history. A spin-out article is therefore entirely appropriate. Finally, to those who would like to make the entire topic just disappear, consider the words of Richard M. Nixon: "There can be no whitewash... on Wikipedia". Jheald (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep has the skeleton of a potentially good article, although it currently leaves a lot to be desired. I'd say it just about passes notability as a seperate article, but I can see the merits of the fork argument. If it stays it would probably be a magnate for vandalism and POV-pushing, and would need constant vigilance to keep it neutral. On balance, a very weak keep, bordering on the verge of a delete. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would also be very keen on a re-name. Can anyone provide sources that Judiaization of Jerusalem is the common name for this phenomena. Israelification, might be a better name (although I doubt that is used either). Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Judaization" seems to be much more common than "Israelization" (though Cheryl Rubenberg who I recently added as a source, does use both). Tiamuttalk 02:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tiamut appears to be accurate in stating the Judaiziation is the most commonly used phrasing. I just looked over the first few pages that come up on google books and a google news archives searchs of the term. It is a term in use almost exclusively in the world of extreme anti-Israel activism. The first page of google books search: Judaization of Jerusalem, sans parentheses shows uses by only one author sufficiently well-known ot have a Wikipedia page Henry Cattan. parentheses gives the same result. page two with parentheses we get Marc H. Ellis Meron Benvenisti (an Israeli leftist and perhaps the most respectable chap in the conversation) and also writers such as Justus Weiner and Israel Stockman-Shomron writing to argue against the concept. So, yes, the phrase is used, but overwhelmingly by obscure and opponents of the existence of the State of Israel. Often in articles that contain hate-speech. All national movements have their extremists. Palestinians nationalists draw more than their share of vocal and hate-filled foreign supporters. The question remains, do we want to support an article that is will definitionally be an outlet for the most estreme kind of ultra-natinoalist hatred of the "other"? Once you have defined an article as "Judaization of Jerusalem, this outcome seems inevitiable. Historicist (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "obscure opponents of the state of Israel" that are cited in the article as sources thus far include: John Dugard of the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) (quoting UNCHR, ICAHD, and B'tselem), Oren Yiftachel, Nur Masalha, and Cheryl Rubenberg, among others. It would help if instead of resorting to polemical WP:SOAPBOXing, Historicist could provide links to sources that could be used in the article. The concept exists. He may not like it, but see WP:POVFORK, the section on Article whose subject is a POV. Some people don't like Evolution, but that doesn't mean we don't write about it. And I object to the Historicist's fear-mongering claims that this article attracts "extremists", as well as to the implications such an assertion holds for editors like me who are working hard to improve it. Tiamuttalk 03:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having re-read the article again I have to admit I think that changing the title to "Alleged Judiazation of Jerusalam" would be best. I have to confess I am still distinctly uncomfortable with the word "Judiazation" despite its apparent academic use. Having said that if someone talked of the historical "Christianization of North America" I, as a Christan, would not be offended. In this case I think the term needs some clarification. What is "Judiazation" meant by in this article, an increase in the number of adherents of the Jewish relgiion or people of Jewish ethnicity? On a personal note, I'm also rather sceptical that it has been Judiazed (at least in a religous sense) - looking at the Demographics article the number of Jews roughly doubled between 1967 and 1995 while the Muslim population had almost quadrupled in the same period while there still remains a smaller but relatively substantial Christian population of 14,000 or so.
Aside from that I don't have that many objections to the article - it is well-sourced and not quite as POV as it seemed the first time I looked at it. If it is decided to delete, I suggest the bulk of this article is merged into the Demographics of Jerusalem article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment Lord Cornwallis and for the encouraging words regarding the improvements in sourcing and NPOV. I understand your reticence and with the snowball of delete votes it may be wise to start looking for another home for this material. I made a backup copy in my user space just in case. Might I suggest that a more appropriate place to merge, if that's where we end up, would be Judaization itself? There we could discuss Oren Yiftachel's thesis that Judaization is a state policy and then discuss specific Judaization projects as they regard Jerusalem, the Galilee and the Negev. We could also cover objections to the use of the term "Judaization" there. The fact is that the term is in widespread use, both as regards Jerusalem and other places in Israel/Palestine. We cannot avoid using it simply because it makes us uncomfortable. We do have articles on Christianization and Islamicization after all. Tiamuttalk 04:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is yet another example of blatant Israel-bashing on Wikipedia. Definitely a POV fork. It's got to go. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a POVFORK exactly? Is Eurabia a POVFORK? Or how about Islamization in Iran or the Islamization of Bosnia and Herzegovina? How can you ignore the hundreds of scholarly and mainstream media sources using and defining the concept of the "Judaization of Jerusalem"? How do you reconcile the exception in WP:POVFORK regarding "Articles that express a POV" with your position? Does anyone arguing POVFORK care to respond to that, or are we simply choosing to speak past one another here? Tiamuttalk 03:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting and notable. Brunte (talk) 06:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those just joining this discussion, the article has been expanded by 10,000 bytes since it was nominated for deletion and is now radically different than it was (see diff here). I urge those who have already voted to re-read it and re-consider their positions based on what it is now, rather than what it was. Tiamuttalk 07:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I can't even beleive that it was nominated for deletion. This is one of the most notable items on the israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yamanam (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the little bit of the content that could work neutrally into the Demographics of Jerusalem article could be written there. However, there's some serious POVforkings in the article as it currently stands as there's not even a borderline attempt at a mention of the Jewish history (4000 years of it) in the area or the "Arabization" of the city. I do see a bunch of names that are considered fringe perspectives used to bash Israel and promote a standard Arab narrative which occupies the article. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, a subject which, at a quick check, could be written up from 20 very good sources, should be reduced to a snippet of a few lines in another article. Some people are unnerved by the word 'judaise', and I can understand that. One section that is lacking is a survey of the consequences of specific 'Judaization' policies on the demographics and politics of Jerusalem's varied Jewish population, since that is divided up into hilonim, haredim, masortiim and datiim. The secularists (hilonim) are losing out to the more intensely religious constituencies that eithe press for, or are not opposed to, 'judaization' (which is not simply directed, please note, Tiamut, at Arabs, but also at the secular city). From memory there was a net drift of some 10,000 young people of secular or moderate orthodox views from the city, replaced by new religiously-inspired immigrants, over the last year or so.
The phrase, which is used, (despite Historicist's insistent drumming on the 'radical' 'extremist' 'nationalist' anti-Israel theory he's invented for the occasion), by many Israelis, and many scholars, encapsulates what no one in good faith can deny, i.e. that it has been consistent government policy, a key element in planning, since 1967. This is everywhere attested in every history of the city. If you forget plunking 'judaization' into your search machines, and simply consult the extensive literature on the modern history of the city, on urban planning, and local politics, you will find extensive documentation of the many-faceted ways in which this policy has been systematically applied to secure a demographic majority, de-Arabize by expropriation of land and turn it to exclusive Jewish residences, expel whole areas of their Arab population (Silwan), deny building permits to Arabs, even, if my memory does not fail me, recalling all textbooks, after the Oslo Accords, used in East Jerusalem Arab schools printed with the PNA/PLO symbol, and restamping it over with 'Lion of Judah' and 'Jerusalem' (not al-Quds). This is a potentially very rich field, and lacks exploration in wiki. Rather than hector for deletion, help the page. Here are the sorts of books and remarks which could assist it.
Amir S. Cheshin, Bill Hutman, Avi Melamed, Separate and Unequal:The Inside Story of Israeli Rule in East Jerusalem, Harvard University Press, 2001 (very good esp. on Teddy Kollek's administration, and changes after Olmert became mayor)
’Jerusalem was never up for discussion with the Arabs, not in the Allon plan, not anywhere. Right after the 1967 war, the Israeli government redrew the city’s borders to include a maximum amount of land with a minimum number of Arabs. The capital of the Jewish state would haqve to have a strong Jewish majority. Within the new municipality, Paleswtinian properties were expropriated to build new suburbs. . .In 1969, William Rogers, the U.S. secretary of state, proposed a peace plan that called for joint Jordanian-Israeli governance of a unified Jerusalem. The Israelis responded by seizing thousands of acres of Arab-owned land in Jerusalem and bringing in bulldozers to build more Jewish housing. . .In 1970, the Israeli government decided to “thicken” the metropolitan area of Jerusalem, to consolidate a Jewish presence not only in each corner of the enlarged and united city of Jerusalem, but all around it as well. Israel build vast new Jewish suburbs, Ramot to the north, Gilo to the south, and East Talpiot to the east. Although Jews had owned some of the land for these projects before 1948, most was expropriated from private Arab owners or declared state lands. Ringing the Arab part of the city with Jewish housing projects would, the government believed, make it impossible for it ever to revert to Arab sovereignty.’ Roger Friedland, Richard Hecht,To rule Jerusalem, University of California Press, 2000 pp.165-166
‘The importance of the city in Jewish tradition, as well as its tenuous position at the end of an Israeli corridor until 1967, mean that planners want to maintain a large Jewish majority. Municipal and national officials have invested heavily in building the city’s infrastructure, including housing for immigrants and young couples. They have also pursued the annexation of land outside the municipal boundaries, in order to provide additional opportunities for building residents (sic) for Jews. Yet they have had trouble stemming the drift of young Jews to coastal areas where there are typically greater economic opportunities.’ Gedalia Auerbach, Ira Sharkansky, Politics and Planning in the Holy City,Transaction, 2007 p.14 (see also p.33)
Finally, this instinctive pressing for delete is not impressive. There are many ways to improve this article, it has barely got off its feet. Negotiate, co-edit, when the proposed page promises to harvest what is a considerable literature on a controversial topic. Academic works abound on it, and not to use them because of some political fear is to subjugate the 'encyclopedic' aim to image anxieties and the taboos they generate. Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heyo Nishidani,
The issue at hand is a single perspective article (read: bordering a propaganda manifesto) with a bare minimum of content that could be written into a non POVfork in a neutral manner. As Nudve presented in their nom, the article is basicaly a WP:SYNTH of various opinion pieces, concocted to promote a thesis.
p.s. As much as instics play a role in the "Occupation gah!!!" narratives for each side in the dispute, which are certainly pack filled with anxieties and taboos, I don't think it is a matter for this forum and it seems, to me at least, a violation of WP:CIV and WP:SOAP to write up long essays in that direction.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 14:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it has just be proposed, and sketched, and immediately a deletion call went out, of course it has a bare minumum content. It hangs under a death sentence because the title and the proposal are disliked. Nudve's suggestion that it is WP:SYNTH is nonsense, for all articles synthesize, i.e. collate many sources, which is what this page aims to do. Nudve's point insinuates that a 'theory' is being mocked up to create the idea that it exists independently of the subjective title of the page. Actually, it is something a good many sources mention, study and to delete the page is to refuse a place on wiki to this particular topic on nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the "call went out", the content has only been further directed in a one way narrative. I've got nothing against a well written portion of the demographics article of Jerusalem explaining that the city is slowly turning more Jewish but this article is just occupied with a synthesis of people, several of them fringe sources, saying bad things about Israel. The breaking off of this topic has been abused to make it into a single perspective POVFORK and as such, it should be deleted. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is not a sin of any sort for the Jewish people to reclaim and Judaize what they regard as their own cities and land on the Land of Israel. What don't I get? Similarly, after the Muslims kicked out hundreds of thousands of Jews from the great Arab capitals they then proceeded to entirely Islamize Cairo, Damascus and the rest. Likewise the Allies de-Nazified Europe after World War II and Democratized Germany -- was that a "sin" or a "crime"? People are not thinking here and just shooting from the hip. That is the way history works. The article needs to point out how the Jewish people have come back to live in Jerusalem after a 2000 year exile and have developed it into a major modern and Jewish city -- with lots of room for all other religions and ethnicities, they even just gave back the Russian Compound to Russia. It's a city that in the last century went from a small neglected dustbowl in the far-off reaches of the Ottoman Empire into a jewel in the crown of the currently four great Jewish cities in Israel in addition to Haifa, Beer Sheba and Tel Aviv or are they also too Judaized for the tastes of some people. What will be the next "complaint", that too many China Towns are springing up all over the US and the world? IZAK (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admirable honesty, and the other side of the argument, which should be represented. Just a small point I'm sure you'll meditate on. The Ghozlan family were evicted from their Silwan home in Jerusalem a few years ago, as part of the Judaization programme. That family had sheltered Jewish residents in 1929 in that home to save their lives from marauding Arabs during the great riot of that year. Somewhere along the line, ideology made administrators lose sight of the righteous gentile. A similar thing has happened in Hebron.Nishidani (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that is "history" -- tear-jerk stories of people being evicted from homes that's as old as the hills? It happens in Western societies not at war. Have you ever heard of the legal act of eminent domain, look it up. And if you are going to match up activities of people, why not consider all the ruthless suicide bombings by Arab terrorists that has killed hundreds of innocent Jews in the heart of Jerusalem and other cities. Israel controls Jerusalem, get over that. If the Israeli governement would decide to hand over some control to the Palestinians then that would come as a result of politics, negotiations and treaties and not by name-calling and propaganda. Just as Egypt controls Cairo and Syria controls Damascus and Saudi Arabia controls Mecca and all those cities had once had significant Jewish populations in years and centuries gone by yet the Egyptians and Syrians and Saudis have conveniently forgotten and noone calls them on that. The core problem here is the oldest one of all, that the Arabs and Palestinians cannot come to terms with the reality of Israel's existence and that on top of that it has the might to enforce its policies in its land as much as any sovereign state has, and let's try to avoid bringing tales of personal cases because history and politics is not social work and communal activism. IZAK (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually 'suffered' from eminent domain law, exercised by a government, in a country where I was a citizen, and the process took 20 years, after which I was paid the full commercial price in a consensual negotiation. Eminent domain does not apply to (a) an occupying army's expropriation of an invaded land with native right or title (b) the justification of seizure to evict one ethnic group and replace it with another, at least in the modern world and modern democracies. The reason is usually to do with government infrastructural works, never with ethnic cleansing. As for the rest, you refer to acts consequent on the nakba, and this is not the place to discuss them.Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, judging from your own words it is evident that you are over-personalizing and expressing an overly-idealized view. When the Muslims over-ran Saudi Arabia and the entire Middle East over the last 1500 years enforcing their creed by force and beheaded its Jews and Christians noone paid anyone "compenstaion" -- such as with the Umayyad conquest of Hispania and the conquest of the Middle east by the Ottoman Empire -- (the Caliphs and the Sultans would have regarded "compenstaion" for conquered peoples as a nice joke, that's about it, they should be happy they weren't beheaded the Caliphs and Sultans thought). This is not just ancient history at play, it stiil goes on as you see with the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus or the Morrocan annexation of Western Sahara and the 1973 to 1991 Western Sahara War or the Eritrian grab of chunks of Ethiopia in the 1961 to 1991 Eritrean War of Independence and many other such cases, where only military force is applied by Muslims against both other Muslims and ceratinly against Christians, (not just by Israel as you make it seem) where the rule of "and to the victor belongs the spoils" applies according to life and reality while in modern Jerusalem the Jews provably have a long-standing historic claim as well as having lived in it as an organized community at least from the time the Turks allowed them to from the 1400s onwards. Incidently, using a word like "nakba" shows that you are approaching this matter from only one point of view, that of the Arabs, and the term "nakba" also has an interesting contrived propagandisic history of its own. The modern Jewish state of Israel, like all the modern Arab states surrounding it are based on legitimate and binding international agreements and treaties starting granted by the victorious Imperial powers, namely Britain and France, stemming from the Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916, the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the Treaty of Versailles of 1919, the Churchill White Paper of 1922, the White Paper of 1939, and then from the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine/UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947 and a number of other UN resolutions and international treaties. If one cannot talk in those kinds of universally accepted diplomatic and political terms but one chooses instead to talk in judgmental emotive one-sided terms and catch-phrases then one is not paying enough attention to WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCATE because on Wikipedia all sides of the issues get to be expressed, addressed, stated and written in articles, as much as they do on this AfD page. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you said about Muslims, could be said by a Muslim of what happened to Canaan in the Tanakh, and in the Book of Joshua. I'm sure you know the narratives intimately enough to realize that Eretz Yisrael came such by overrunning the land, which then was overrun by Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks, the Brits, etc. No doubt the Canaanites were overrun by the Hyksos and the Hittites, etc. As to the rest, you don't seem very familiar with the way either Jerusalem or Cairo was taken when both the Persians and Arabs overran those two cities. History is not a recitative of good guys vs.bad guys, except in some minor cerebral fibrillation on odd days in the minds of American Presidents.Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heyo IZAK, Regardless of whether it is a sin or not (it isn't), the article has been written up as a fork for promoting a "bad Israelis!" narrative and hence should be deleted. Some content could be taken from it and added to the demographics of Jerusalem article. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • HiHo Jaakobou I get that but by the same token as a Wikipedia article the Judaic point of view must be built in and presented. How about calling it Allegations of Judaization of Jerusalem as they did with the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article? But that is beating around the bush since the fact is that the term has come into coinage, albeit by Israel-bashers yet nevertheless it can be turned around and shown to be a term that is not based on negativty against Israel and Judaism alone. No doubt at this very moment there are Israelis and writers who are writing to show why "Judaizing Jerusalem" is actually a good thing from a Judaic and Israeli point of view. IZAK (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let me know when a clear and visible change exists in the article and I will reconsider my !vote. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I hope to get around to it. One of the big issues is the growth of vast Haredi and Hasidic communities in Jerusalem with many Hasidic dynasties that are even based in Jerusalem such as the Belz (Hasidic dynasty) and the Ger (Hasidic dynasty) and it is due to their population growth resulting from marriage at an early age (around 20) and the subsequent very large families they have, usually around ten kids per family, that then creates the pressure for more housing and it never ends. We are talking hundreds of thousands of Haredi and Hasidic Jews here and it's not even addressed in the article. Anyone could do a search on Google and come up with endless articles that will prove definitely that it is a plain old Haredi/Hasidic baby-boom that is fueling the so-called Judaization of Jerusalem that Arabs bemoan but Jews accept. By the way, Haredi Jews do not care about archaeological digs that gets the PLO hot under the collar (they would prefer the Earth be left untouched fearing ancient Jewish graves will be destroyed) they care about housing and room for their living and growing population. In many ways this is a no-brainer. IZAK (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this topic gets a lot of attention among the Arab news networks as well as Western academics, and to those claiming it is a POVFORK, what exactly is it forking off of? You cant seriously answer Jerusalem or Demographics of Jerusalem can you? Nableezy (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heyo the guy from Nablus,
      As has been stated by the nom, it is a breakoff from Demographics of Jerusalem, History of Jerusalem, and East Jerusalem. A zero attempt at constructing a non Anti-Israel-only narrative article makes this into a POVFORK.
      Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 16:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC) more accurate 16:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This guy is actually from Chicago by way of Egypt. Nableezy (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So what's the connection to Nablus as a nick then? JaakobouChalk Talk 18:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is none, it is a figment of your imagination, something you put together so that you could dismiss my points with greater ease. But I certainly would love to go see Nablus one day. Nableezy (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A reasonably balanced article. From the above discussions I expected something much more dubious. DGG (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong Keep Hugely important (and well-sourced) topic. As long as NPOV is kept under control, the issue , in-and-of-itself, belong here. To do otherwise is to be a form of censorship which Wikipedia isn't. NPOV will have to be watched, but that's not a reason to delete. I don't think the topic needs be NPOV. Hobit (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article has been drastically rewritten in the last 24 hours or so since the nomination, so as the nominator I feel that I should comment on this. I agree that the WP:SYNTH problem has diminished, since the sources improved and opinions are now attributed, even if they are somewhat cherry-picked. Still, I think the WP:POVFORK remains, and much of the valuable information now in this article should be merged into other Jerusalem-related articles, where it can be discussed more neutrally and in a more comprehensive context. -- Nudve (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your reconsideration. But what has occurred occurs everywhere, most recently at 2008-2009 Gaza War, material in subsections kept multiplying, so separate articles were created whenever a section got bloated. The material here, still, after 6 days, a small amount of the potential material available, would suffer extreme reduction if relocated to a section of any other page. That is why I would ask you to reconsider your second point.Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you specify exactly which information cannot be added to any other article? -- Nudve (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come now, this is an article in its own right. To dismember it and relocate the plethora of details would be a futile, and sisyphean task, with no point to it, other than getting rid of a page which, in a very brief arch of time, has been raised from scrappy to substantial. The original objections relate to a completely different page. It is as if you objected to a rickety skeleton, left the room, and came back to find a fully-fleshed body, engineered with deft intelligence to have moveable parts, eyes and limbs, and insist that your objection still stands, and that one cannibalize the robo for spare parts for some other automata, equally well made, because you disliked the original blueprint.Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice Metaphor, but I still have my doubts. For example, the entire "Demographic debate" section is dedicated to one author's POV (I assume it is brought correctly), and most of the article is people's opinions and accusations, and because of the article's stated scope, they can only be one way. Only the part about the Elad Association is actually important fact. -- Nudve (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a way, we should all thank you for initiating the deletion process. My personal view is that most articles in this area could be deleted on similar grounds. By the nomination you galvanized Tiamut to bring it up the a snuffish level in just a few days. We are essentially now discussing a different article. My first glance left me in doubt, to tell the truth, but I voted for keep, because I know Tiamut's work as an editor, and now that she has fleshed in the details, and elided some poor phrasing, I'm much more comfortable with its claim to an autonomous page. As to people's opinions, well, my understanding of the academic literature is that this is certainly not a matter of opinion: I gave some sources, and the bibliography has more (much still unharvested). The points you raise are legitimate: it's just that this page has had a life of some several days. There are articles in wiki that go back to 2004 on important subjects, which are devastatingly bad, because of edit-warring. No one would argue they be deleted. Their poor state begs for more collegial and intensive work on them. This is just out of the cradle. I'd edit it myself, except that I'm semi-retired from the project, and have only stayed on to clear a few issues mainly relating to Arbcom. I hope, if accepted, the deletional school does not use their disagreement to engage in a 'counter-attack' but simply exercises tight control that the page conforms wholly to wiki standards. Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nudve, this article is seven days old. I've only been editing it for two (I might mention, wholly on my own). The "Demographic debate" section was added yesterday. I put Benvenisti's work in and then had to attend to real life. Today, I have added Justus Weiner's thoughts and those of Dan Diker. I wish that instead of focusing on the shortcomings of the article when it is under development and using that to lobby for its deletion, that you would instead join in the process of editing and/or at the very least acknowledge that your fellow editors are not wizards and cannot put complete versions of articles up in one day, or even five. Tiamuttalk 16:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to edit the article while the AFD is still open, although it looks like it's going to close as "Keep" or "No Consensus". I appreciate the hard work you are putting into this, but I still don't understand exactly why this information can't be added to, say, Demographics of Jerusaelm or East Jerusalem. -- Nudve (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even the deletionist are saying that some of the material should be merge. Why? Because the topic is notable, and the article is sourced. POV concern is a matter of discussion on the talk page of the article and can be addressed by editing. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tiamut. Informative and well-sourced. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (switched from delete) Particularly motivated to switch by the Haaretz sources. I still think there are significant POV issues within the article, but they can be allayed, but no longer believe it's undue or a POV fork. I still caution users to remember that this isn't a battleground. Sadly, not one dead innocent from either side will be brought back to life, whatever Wikipedia says about anything. I heartily, if immodestly recommend perusing WP:BALANCE and cheerfully (and still immodestly) recommend WP:BOSTONTEAPARTY. Although, oddly, this AFD has been (so far) remarkably chilled. --Dweller (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The arguments of Tiamut, Nishidani, and IZAK are convincing. The article is now well-written and impeccably sourced, with plenty of scope for expansion in neutral language. The article (and potential larger article) is too long to be feasibly merged with another, and the claim that this a POV fork is weak. NSH001 (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal Perhaps the problem is in the title. Once the article is framed by the topic Judaizing Jerusalem it will necessarily lead the reader to perceive a Jewish effort to Judaize what is by implication a non-Jewish city (after all, if it were Jewish, it would not need Judaizing.) If, instead, the article was called something like Efforts to change the ethnicity of Jerusalem, it could take into account both the history of previous efforts to change the ethnicity of Jerusalem, and the fact that there are ongoing Palestinian efforts to achieve and maintain a Palestinian majority in the city. Efforts to change the ethnicity of Jerusalem is both closer to NPOV and more accurate, since we are talking about ethnicity.Historicist (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you're confused. Palestinian efforts are focused on retaining the character of that part of the city and outlying areas where they are or were a strong majority, and where they had land now systematically confiscated. 'Jerusalem' is two realities managed by one group. There are no 'ongoing P efforts to change the ethnicity of (West) Jerusalem'. There are ongoing Israeli (nota bene, not 'Jewish') efforts to change the ethnic composition of the eastern area of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is in two parts. It is absolutely uncontroversial that the recognized Jerusalem of Israeli governance is Jewish, should be Jewish, will forever be Jewish. There is controversy over why that part of the city conquered in 1967 should be subject to demographic engineering to smother its non-Jewish identity. It is this that the page deals with.Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Historicist's proposal to merge any useful information into new article, Efforts to change the ethnicity of Jerusalem.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could see that as an article covering various movements in history, but this article is about a specific policy of the government. The topic of this article is sufficiently sourced and long enough that it can be its own article, with a summary going to this proposed new article along with summaries of other movements in history, and if those other movements are discussed enough to merit their own article they should also have a separate article. Nableezy (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In its present form, after two days of revisions, this is an excellent example of the proclivity to use Wikipedia as a nationalist battleground. First we have the assertion:the Jews are Judaizing Jerusalem, the format and language support this assertion, indeed, they make it seem self-evident that the Jews are doing something inherently wrong. Then, there is the pretense of balance, two sections, support and criticism. But, the article itself is an indictment. Once the accusation is framed in this way, Israel will necessarily appear in the wrong, no matter how the article is reedited. the only hope for salvaging this article is to refdefine the premise. Either by renaming the article, or by folding the material into a longer and more nuanced article on Jerusalem.Historicist (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may have missed this but where does the phrase 'the Jews are Judaizing Jerusalem' occur in the text? The Israeli government and the municipal authorities have long explicitly announced and put into effect a programme of 'judaising Jerusalem'. Please do not throw around the phrase 'the Jews' this, 'the Jews' that. Many secular Jewish people in Jerusalem couldn't care less. To them it is a vibrant modern historic city, full of cultural diversity and richly variegated traditions, Jewish, Christian, Arab, Russian, Armenian etc. Quite a few are uncomfortable with tendencies to sacralise the landscape, and homogenize its culture, or subordinate its life to that part of Judaism which governs the exemplary religious life. Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article's title implies a certain POV on real or imagined demographic trends in Jerusalem, as Historicist nicely explained above. Beit Or 22:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for inclusion is WP:Notability rather than NPOV. If there are POV issues, our response is to tag and ruthlessly edit it rather than delete it. Personally, I'm not at all convinced that there has been any sort of Judaization of Jerusalem - at least from glancing at the figures on the Demographics of Jerusalem page. However, I am convinced enough sources have been provided to indicate that this concept is a genuine, verifiable and relatively mainstream one even if it may be incorrect. And I happily admit to not being an expert on the topic. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Historicist is editing Islamization at the same time as he is calling for the deletion of this article, which is immensely better documented. And Tundra, drop this feigned disbelief, as with the 'alleged'. It does help to read from cover to cover Israeli dailies over breakfast, and mull things like this orthis orthis or this orthis or this or this or this or this, over one's muesli. Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Tundrabuggy that it is an attack page. The very name of the article suggests something out of Der Stürmer, and its existence in Wikipedia is an embarrassment to the fundamental idea that this is an encyclopedia. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By now this has become an ethnic-block instinctive 'thumbs down' vote. By likening the name to Der Stürmer, you are suggesting those who are writing it or who support its retention are anti-Semitic. You haven't even read the evidence. It is used by Israeli historians of the highest calibre, without irony. So, are they too Nazis, like me and Tiamut, to be rapidly included in the name-sheet at Jewish self-hatred, a good article to parallel this one with?Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article. Is there some other "evidence"? I have not concluded that the people writing the article are antisemitic, but rather I am considering the written content. We are talking only about deleting a problematic article. I assume the editors will not be deleted. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you haven't read the thread. Meron Benvenisti's books introduced me to the term years ago. Meron Benvenisti, and he is just one of several eminent Israeli academics one could name who use the term, would never be seen anywhere near anything or anyone associated with virulent anti-Semitic or racist rhetoric. He uses the term, and 'Hebraization' without equivocation. It is what is going on, and historians, as opposed to partisans, call processes by their proper name. Denialism is something which we, and particularly anyone of Jewish heritage, or anyone, like I hope myself, with a long attachment to the Jewish tradition's exemplary witness as a 'light unto the gentiles', are rightly touchy about, where any fudging of historical truth regarding Jewish suffering or the Holocaust, or weaseling around the facts of anti-Semitism is involved. But denialism works both ways. This is a well-attested fact, and reality, relating to Israel, not to 'the Jews', and the 'denialism' factor explains virtually every negative vote. Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heyo Nishidani,
I believe most voters expressed something other than denialism as a reasoning. To be frank, this suggestion seems like a violation of the decorum principal the ArbCom have decided upon. Also, I've yet to see a rationalized non-soapbox response to the concearn raised by a number of editors here that only anti-Israeli perspectives occupy the article and it's basically used as an attack page. Suggesting the issue has been recorded by Jewish people as well as rabid anti-Zionists doesn't quite answer this concern.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 13:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if I've violated something, denounce me to the cops. I won't object, never do. We are editing a global encyclopedia, and to do that adequately, we are obliged to make sure our judgements are informed by an individual assessment, in each case, in each edit, of the merits of the argument. I keep seeing 'the Palestinian perspective', 'the Israeli perspective', 'the Japanese think', the 'Russians say', 'the Arab viewpoint', 'The Christian take on this' etc.etc., and many only slipshod terms employed by otherwise careful editors. I don't, I've said it before, believe there is any such thing. There is no such thing as an 'Israeli perspective' or an 'anti-Israeli/anti-Palestinian perspective' for it implies in every case groupthink. Terrible things occur in the history of every region, every people: the historian's job is not to think of cui bono when writing, except of course when evaluating the reliability of, especially, primary sources. It is simply, when a topic becomes part of his discipline, as 'Judaisation of Jerusalem' is part of academic discourse by now, to struggle against his own biases while he assays the evidence. Most are saying the evidence is not there, this is an allegation, that it is anti-Semitic to even mention the subject, that it is an attack page on Israel. If (in my own area of professional interest, where I don't edit) I saw Chinese editors coming down unilaterally against a page on the Sinification of Tibet (see Sinicization of Tibet), saying it was an attack page against China, or that people proposing the page were like people writing on the Yellow Peril, I would make the same observation. What Israel is doing in Jerusalem is something with many analogies in the past, and, in the present. But the reaction here is pure denial, because too many are judging this, apart from Izak, with political and ethnic defensiveness. If my saying this troubles you, I'm sorry. But that's how I see it, and I am more unnerved by instinctive support for any position (even one I may share) than by fears of being caught out as politically incorrect.Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that, even for those who are most opposed to Zionism, this article is a disaster, because it frames the issue as a confrontation with Judaism, and as opposition to the presence of Judaism....exactly contrary to the traditional claims of anti-Zionists. Although, outside the title and headings, the editors are careful refer to Zionism and Zionists, it could not be more clear that the objection is to increasing the Jewish population of Jerusalem. Why would anyone want such a problematic article? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please read the thread and the literature cited on the page's bibliography. This is not about the Judaisation of West Jerusalem: it is about the historic fact, pursued by both the municipal authorities and the government, to change the planning, urban development, demographics, and character of that part of the city, with its Arab culture, demographics and character, annexed de facto, not, technically de jure (Lustick) into a greater Jerusalem. The word 'Jerusalem', operatively, refers not to the Jewish city, but to the Arab area, as existing, as expropriated, as incorporated, where massive development informed by a policy of judaisation is extremely well documented. No one in the real world in Israel doubts that this is what the purpose is: Izak admits it is so. It has generated an extensive literature in academia. No one is contesting 'Judaism'. Books are noting the way a city with three monotheistic traditions is subject to social, demographic and infrastructural engineering to ensure the absolute, irrevocable Jewish character as the dominant reality over the illegally incorporated Eastern sector of the city and its limotrophic zones, even if this means kicking out Arabs. It's not an opinion: it stands out like dog's balls, and impartial, non-polemical Israeli academics call it 'Judaization'.Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is that the article does not really mean what it seems to say, which is absurd. By that thinking, the article should have a notice on the top of the page warning readers that if they do not read the contents, and explanations, of this AfD they will be at risk of misunderstanding what the article "really" means. Sorry, but that does not work for me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important Comment The article has been under great improvemnt by Tiamut, her improvement of the article started after 23 Mar, I beleive for those who has voted before this date it might be better to revisit the article and reconsider their votes. For the records, quick review of the votes shows that 11 users voted to Delete on 23 Mar only, and during 24 Mar and 25 Mar only 6 users voted to Delete maybe this shows that article has became more balanced. Yamanam (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important response (just kidding about the "important" part, the point is that your comment does not become any more important by saying it is): There are two problems that improvements to the text cannot resolve, and in order of importance (so to speak), they are: (1) The title. In conjunction with the subject matter of the article, the title is inherently an attack on an ethnic/religious group; and (2) The article does not really work as a standalone article. There is no reason to have this article when we already have Positions on Jerusalem. It is an impermissible content fork of that article. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title is not 'inherently (or otherwise) an attack on an ethnic/religious group'. If 'judaization' is troublesome, why do Israeli scholars use it in books describing what is going on? If it were, then in Israeli universities there are a large number of scholars, using the term' who must be listed as 'Jewish self-haters'. It is an article on consistent, strongly documented official policies by government and municipal authorities. Nishidani (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Judaization is no more an inherent attack on Jews, than Christianization is an inherent attack on Christians, or Islamization on Muslims. Also, for those arguing that the article topic is POV, see [Articles whose subject is a POV. This is not a reason for deletion. Tiamuttalk 17:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could not be more wrong. The problem is the history that the known baggage it carries. Take a look at the image, and caption, at the top of this page, and you will see. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Malcolm Schosha, but that proves what exactly. (Besides the popularity of invoking vague allusions to the anti-Semitic undertones of a word used freely by scholarly sources to describe a government policy/process in this AfD.) Tiamuttalk 16:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not vague. The title of the article sounds like a headline from Der Stürmer. It is virtually impossible to use the term, particularly in the context of this attack page, without it sounding antisemitic [11], [12]. The term has too much antisemitic history attached to it.
As a consequence the title, and the headings, frame the article in terms of anti-semitism, rather than anti-Zionism. All the more so when one realizes that a very high percentage of the Jews moving into east Jerusalem are ultra-orthodox Jews who are themselves anti-Zionist. So, is the problem with Zionism (as the anti-Zionists have always claimed), or is the objection really to Jews?...which is how the article makes it appear. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. Antisemitic tradition and then Nazi usage esp. made the word 'Jew' itself synonymous with all sorts of contemptible things. Not for that was the dignity of the ethnonym destroyed. I admit I personally refrain from using the word precisely for the reasons you give, though I'm an odd man out in this, for Jewish people, and the modern world generally, have no problem restoring that word to its pristine meaning. One should not be intimidated by history, or the past. The word 'judaize' is of Greek origin, for example, and first occurs in koine Greek in the Septuagint translation of the Tanakh, at Book of Esther ch.8:17:

κατὰ πόλιν καὶ χώραν, οὗ ἂν ἐξετέθη τὸ πρόσταγμα, οὗ ἂν ἐξετέθη τὸ ἔκθεμα, χαρὰ καὶ εὐφροσύνη τοῖς Ιουδαίοις, κώθων καὶ εὐφροσύνη, καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν περιετέμοντο καὶ ιουδάιζον διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν Ιουδαίων.

ἱουδάἲζειν 'to judaise', referred in the Sacred Scriptures, according to Liddell and Scott, to the conversion of non Jews to Judaism, to become Jewish, or imitate the Jews, and comes from this passage in the Hebrew (miṯəyahăḏîm:מִֽתְיַהֲדִ֔ים). However there's an interesting discussion (ch.6) on the word in Shaye J. D. Cohen's The beginnings of Jewishness:boundaries, varieties, uncertainties, University of California Press, 1999 pp.175-197, for example, where it is taken as Jewish Greek meaning 'profess to be Jews', and where the author says it only came to mean 'convert to Judaism' in later post-classical Christian authors, where it assumes several additional meanings (a) 'to asdopt the customs and manners of the Jews (b) to be Jewish or become Jewish (c)to interpret the Old Testament "literally". (d) to deny the divinity of Christ (e) to give support to the Jews by adopting their customs and manners'(p.186). It is finally noted that in medieval times, the verb came to be used of those who rebelled against the state or who lent money at usurious rates of interest (p.196, as in 'to jew', as one finds, for example, to quote an example I came across recently in John Updike's Rabbit is Rich (1981) in the sense of 'chisel a dealer down on a price'. John Updike, A Rabbit Omnibus, Penguin 1991 p.483).
The word Judaize in contemporary English, according to the OED has two meanings (a)to play the Jew; to follow Jewish customs or religious rites; to follow Jewish practice (b) To make Jewish: to imbue with Jewish doctrines or practices. Judaization first used in English by Robert Southey in 1814, clearly means 'a becoming or making Jewish in character' (Vol.VIII p.291 col.3). In this sense, there is no intrinsic lexical opprobrium attached to the word, and the fact that it is used in so many Israeli sources dealing with the post-1967 transformation of Jerusalem is proof that the insinuation you keep making that it has an anti-Semitic undertone is evidently misbegotten, and a piece of rhetorically presumptive hyperbole.I'm getting sick and tired of every other argument in the I/P area leaking into this kind of intimidation by insinuation, instead of hewing to strict, close argument according to evidence. Nishidani (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Rubbish"? Really? Your beginning tells me a lot. Then you follow the inane remark with some refs that have nothing to do with my points at all. Anyone who reads the title of the article will see immediately that the discussion is framed [13] in terms of a 'Jewish problem'. The the title does not name Zionists, nor does it refer to Israelis (many of whom are Islamic, Christian, Druze, etc), but the objection is to Judaization. The entire article is framed in terms of Judaization. And you see nothing wrong with that? Amazing.
But this is not the place to argue these points further. If the article survives the AfD, I will resume the discussion on the article talk page. I think it is sad to see WP degraded by this attack page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article isnt an objection to the policy, it is a description of the policy. And that policy is called Judaization in English sources describing it. You are objecting to people using a word on the basis that you think that the very word itself has antisemitic connotations. That is indeed rubbish. Nableezy (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would describe what you have written, above, as bullshit (in the philosophical use of the term), because the fact is there are plenty of WP:reliable sources that say "Judaization" can be, and very often is, an antisemitic term [14][15][16][17][18][19]. WP goes by reliable sources, no matter what Nableezy thinks to the contrary, and the word, as it is used as the title of this attack page, certainly appears to be antisemitic. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You see how your two points are in conflict? You say Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, yet you object to using a term found in countless reliable sources describing the topic of the article. Try to have some consistency in your position, the title is supported by many reliable sources. They are describing a set of actions by the Israeli government and the word they use is Judaization. That a number of Israeli and Jewish scholars use that exact term to describe those exact actions hasnt dissuaded you from making the assertion that the use here is antisemitic. Though I will concede that it may be used in an antisemitic way, here it is not. How something appears to you is not really our concern, this is the name scholars, including Jewish scholars, use for these policies. Nableezy (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the conflict? I never claimed that there are no antisemitic sources that are WP:verify. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The conflict is that you refuse to use the name of something that RSs use because you think it is antisemitic. This is what the policy is called in English, there is nothing antisemitic about it. I wont argue this further, but the assertion that the name of something, a name used by Israeli and Jewish sources as well, is antisemitic is nonsense. Nableezy (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is it is not my reasoning that is conflicted. There are often sources that are in conflict. But, when the very name of an article rests on one side when there two sides, the result is a profoundly problematic article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that de-Arabization is a term frequently encountered in Israeli sources, with a double meaning, of scrubbing off Levantine traits in the Mizrahi population and the Israelification of Arab territory.Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep. well-sourced and notable. charges of povforking and synth are unfounded - if some editors think that a notable and reliably sourced topic "makes israel look bad" that is not a reason to delete it. if the content of the article itself is unbalanced to "make israel look bad," it needs content based on reliable sources to show the other pov, used with due weight. untwirl(talk) 16:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepThis is a notable subject, and the article is well-sourced. The text is long enough to warrant a separate article, merging is not a good option and deletion IMO is out of the question. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This chair is offered by Dweller to the closing admin, so they can have a rest at this point, before pushing on to the finish. Good luck. Note, I chose an uncomfortable one, so you don't nod off.

I would reply to Malcolm's attempt to find WP:RS for his thesis that 'Judaisation' as in 'Judaisation of Jerusalem' is antiSemitic, but (a) a chair is uncomfortable for anyone forced to listen to a wearisome argument, and my reply would require, in courtesy, that someone supply the admin with a divan instead, (with a few headache tablets if the effects of my refutation proved somniferous) and (b) Olmert, when he was mayor of Jerusalem, is quoted in German sources as saying the latest landgrab will ensure an irreversible Judaising of the city ('Die jüngste Landenteignung, so erklärte Jerusalems Bürgermeister Ehud Olmert am 4. Mai, will die Judaisierung der Stadt zu einer unwiderruflichen Tatsache machen'.Die Zeit, May, 1995 ). Meron Benvenisti, Baruch Kimmerling, Oren Yiftachel, Israel Shahak are, since they are Israeli scholars who use or used this word, all tone-deaf to the Nazi-echoes picked up by Malcolm's reliable sources, some of which Frontpage Magazine, are not reliable, and others, had he read them, deal with things like Protestant translations of the Tanakh in the 16th century. Shahak was a survivor of the Holocaust, and yet called a spade a spade. But I don't think it worth the trouble, since German RS like die Zeit say Ehud Olmert himself subscribes to the word and policy. However, if Malcolm does want a point by point refutation, suffice it to ask for it, but only if he can accomodate the admin on watch here in a more comfortable observation point, i.e., a bed.Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, please review WP:NPA and WP:SOAP. Refactoring might be a good idea. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Informative article about a notable subject. Factsontheground (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Read through it, and I see no problems at all. A notable topic covered by many different newspapers. Dream Focus 13:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could be worse than having a chair. I am sure many of those participating in this AfD have not really enjoyed it. Malcolm Schosha
  • Keep. It does seem to be a notable topic. I'm not sure I understand some of the objections about it; there's no reason why we couldn't have parallel articles (for instance) on Islamicization of Bosnia, Christianization of the Philippines, and so on. (I might have a go at the Bosnia one, as that's an area I know something about.) The expansion of a religion's reach is obviously a topic of significant historical interest, and as others have demonstrated it is evidently one that has been documented in reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a look. Here is an example of the "great improvement"

Support for Judaization efforts[edit]

According to Nur Masalha, the International Christian Embassy in Jersualem (ICEJ), established in 1980 in the former home of Edward Said, supports "exclusive Israeli sovereignty over the city and the Judaisation of Arab East Jerusalem."[1]

The Elad Association promotes the Judaization of East Jerusalem. Operating in the city for some 20 years to acquire properties belonging to Palestinians in Kfar Silwan, Palestinians say it has "taken over" substantial sections of the village.[2] Elad also funds the digs being conducted near the Temple Mount. In 2008, Haaretz reported that at least 100 skeletons dating to the Islamic era (c. 8th-9th centuries AD) found a few hundred meters from Al-Aqsa mosque were removed and packed into crates before they could be examined by archaeological experts.[3] The excavations at Al-Aqsa are described in Arab media in the context of Israeli efforts to Judaise Jerusalem.[4]

  • The only hope that I see for treating this material in a responsible fashion is to include it in a longer article so that it can have some context.Historicist (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


References[edit]

  1. ^ Masalha, 2007, p. 130.
  2. ^ Meron Rapoport (February 12, 2008). "Group 'Judaizing' East Jerusalem accused of withholding donor information". Haaretz. Retrieved 2009-03-23.
  3. ^ Meron Rapoport (November 15, 2008). "Islamic-era skeletons 'disappeared' from Elad-sponsored dig". Haaretz. Retrieved 2009-03-23.
  4. ^ "Israel prepares to dig tunnels underneath the Aqsa Mosque" (in Arabic). Aljazeera. 4 March 2009. Retrieved 18 Mar 2009.Google translation


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 10:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom M Cullimore[edit]

Tom M Cullimore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be no coverage in reliable sources - suspected hoax —Snigbrook 15:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - hoax. Searches on "Cullimore" together with "Emmerdale", "Neighbours", "Coronation Street" turn up no confirmation. Searching with "Girls Aloud" turned up only an addition of his name to The Promise (Girls Aloud song) by an IP at 21:55 on 15 March, ten minutes before this article was created by JamesMallorieLeeds (talk · contribs), who has no other edits. JohnCD (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if it isn't a hoax, it would need a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic so the best option would be to delete it. Tavix (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above, nothing comes up online. To Snigbrook: I'd strongly recommend using prod for uncontroversial deletion candidates such as this one. ~EdGl ★ 02:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diogenes Small[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, few search results outside of Wikipedia. Very few book results. ←Spidern→ 15:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Inspector Morse may be a highly notable series of books, but this character is not really in the slightest bit important in the series. Although I have to wonder if he's a relation of Solomon Short's. JulesH (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is one kind of fictional character we really ought to have articles on. He's presented in the very popular books as "real" -- a source for quotations, epigrams, whatever, and nothing in the series lets the reader know he's not real. People will try to look him up. The article is useful in a way that most articles about fictional characters aren't. See Necronomicon and The Book of Counted Sorrows for similar stuff. Also note the Wikiquote section, which shows the level of interest maybe.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. More or less a repeat of the previous comment. He is as real as any other fictional character and needs to be included - that is if Wikipedia intends to be all-inclusive. His quotations have an importance as they have been used elsewhere. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or alternatively, Merge to Inspector Morse. That article seems to be more about the series than the character. (Though that isn't exactly clear in the article's intro.) - jc37 08:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Have added a couple more sources to the article. Hiding T 12:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Inspector Morse. Very little content here and this will never aspire to anything more than a stub. Entirely in universe and has no notability outside of the Morse series. Notability is not inherited. Eusebeus (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how you can tell that this will never aspire to anything more than a stub. Also, unless we have read a different article, I'm not sure how this is in-universe. It's all written from the perspective of the author rather than the character, and meets the very definition of out of universe. As to notability not being inherited, of course it is. It isn't inherent, it is inherited from secondary sources, like the ones listed at the article. Hiding T 11:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a guess, but I think they're talking about WP:INHERITED. - jc37 19:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that, but it is still a flawed argument. Also, see User:Hiding/Points to note regarding deletion debates and User:Hiding/What notability is not. And now I'm guilty of cutting and pasting arguments only somewhat related. Hiding T 20:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I read the entire article(it was short) and it seems quite notable. The character has appeared in numerous books, and been often quoted elsewhere. Dream Focus 13:03, 27 March 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. BJTalk 10:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Thomas[edit]

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

Claims regarding crime disputed. Possibly non-notable. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I am initiating this listing to help Hedgerjoe (talk · contribs). See article's talk page for more info. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete page and history. An overriding consideration in biographies of living people is, do no harm. Better safe than sorry, particularly in cases involving alleged paedophilia. Consider doing this speedily and blanking the page in the meantime.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tried to speedy this page long ago for the above reasons, but after sources were added I backed off. Beach drifter (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 24 March 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. BJTalk 10:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethocapitalism[edit]

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

Made-up portmanteau word, no useful coverage on Google search. Author admits [20] that it is made up. Acroterion (talk) 14:57, 23 March 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. A lack of reliable sources indicates that the subject is probably not notable. However, I can provide a copy of the deleted material to a user page, if the user would like to work on improving it. TNXMan 13:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shubhojit Chatterjee[edit]

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

Unremarkable photographer (see WP:NOTABILITY). Only reference is a passing mention in a school website. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That has been the problem all along, Harold. Yes, his name produces some results on Google, but they are not reliable sources. If you are aware of some actual, reliable sources, now would be the time to bring them forward. Both of us tried to properly reference this page, and it just didn't happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, true. You all are right, which brings me to provide the article with more reliable sources. I'm trying... Harolddiaz —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete No sources provided, and none seem to be available, to verify the article claims and to check if the subject meets the WP:CREATIVE standard of notability. I will reconsider my !vote, if the claims listed by User:Hoary can be substantiated by independent, secondary, reliable sources. Abecedare (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer If the article is deleted, it will orphan the redirect page The True Blue Shubhojit, so that should be deleted too. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources as they stand are not sufficiently independant to meet WP:N, and so far googling hasn't brought up anything either. Artw (talk) 15:06, 26 March 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 Mystery Hunt. MBisanz talk 09:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Escape from Zyzzlvaria[edit]

Escape from Zyzzlvaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:MADEUP and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Game creators also doubt notability as seen on talk page. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my comments on talk page, reproduced here for convenience. AJD (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's really not clear to me that Escape from Zyzzlvaria is a notable game. It has never been commercially released—indeed, it was not intended to be commercially released; it was just written as a framework and adjunct to a set of metapuzzles in the MIT Mystery Hunt. It edges pretty close to "things made up one day"—in fact, a game that is not commercially released and only distributed to a relatively small number of people is one of the specific examples of a topic unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. If it has legs beyond this month and achieves notability later; we can always have an article about it then; till then, whatever content here is important can be mentioned in the article on the Mystery Hunt. AJD (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

    • Okay, redirect; I agree with the points made below. AJD (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:RS. I note that even on Boardgamegeek, a community of several hundred thousand hardcore board game enthusiasts, only two people claim to have owned this game and there are 3 recorded plays. The one and only comment gives it a 2 out of 10 and points out a fundamental logical flaw which almost certainly would render the game unable to be commercially released. So basically not notable now and unlikely to become so anytime soon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mystery Hunt, a perfectly appropriate target. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm curious why PROD wouldn't have served for this. It seems highly likely to be uncontroversial. Why clog AfD with it? In any case, I've redirected as I suggested above in an attempt to save time. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I find it funny that in the BoardGameGeek sources, the game appears as a cardboard box with a sticker on it. That is pretty obvious evidence that it is not formally published, and as such isn't notable. Tavix (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, sourcing or lack thereof is the relevant evidence for or against notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Congratulations, you know WP:N and/or WP:RS! Tavix (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is that evidence of self-publication is not evidence against notability, and that we don't delete for those reasons as such. It's an important point because of the unfortunate frequency with which arguments of that form are brought out against well-sourced articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why do you have to argue? I agree with you, I was just making an additional comment so I didn't have to repeat what anyone else said. Tavix (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Phil. redirects are cheap and someone might come looking for this. Hobit (talk) 21:25, 23 March 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) 02:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amn't[edit]

Amn't (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a word. Nothing more than a dictionary entry. Powers T 14:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Ain't. Same word, really, differences in dialect aside (indeed, when I got a copy of Mogwai's Happy Songs for Happy People and ripped it to my computer, I thought Gracenotes had a typo in the entry for the CD) Sceptre (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The usage of amn't is distinctively different from that of ain't (e.g. in the double negative referred to in the article), as is its provenance. It would be lost in the other article. If this is redirected to ain't, then shouldn't ain't in turn be redirected to copula (linguistics)? And, by the same logic, Hiberno-English should be subsumed within English language, etc, etc. This is emphatically not just "a dictionary entry". SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before I !vote, please could you explain how it's different to a dictionary entry? Surely provenance, usage and etymology of words belong on Wiktionary, not here?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall is right - I too would like to see the case for keeping. pablohablo. 21:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that the article is a bit thin, and does not at present contain much more than would fit in a dictionary, but I don't like the argument that it is inherently "nothing more than a dictionary entry" because it is an "article about a word" – which seems to be what the nominator is saying. By that logic, there is no justification for the article on ain't either, or for many other articles about words (sic comes to mind). I also reject the "same word, really" fallacy expressed above, and please note that the fact that one editor had not heard the word and thought it was a misprint is completely irrelevant. I thought one of the benefits of WP (as compared to a paper encyclopaedia) was that it had room for this sort of small article on a minor grammatical/vocabulary issue. I think it's a pity to see it swallowed up by a related article on a quite different negative form of the verb to be. But a careful merge, giving due prominence to how amn't is different from ain't, could perhaps persuade me. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two sentences in my nomination are separate. Had I intended the first to be an explanation of the second, I would have made that relationship clear. Powers T 12:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: A redirect is insufficient: although the amn't article is poor, it has information not in the ain't article. Clearly, amn't is not the "same" word as ain't; the former is only ever used for "am not", never for "is not", "are not", "has not", or "have not". A separate article is not justified: expanding amn't beyond a dictdef will make it overlap considerably with ain't. A bold mention in the intro, or a dedicated subsection, might be in order. jnestorius(talk) 23:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No applicable deletion rationale given, since this is already more than a dictionary definition. It is also sourced. A merge into a section of ain't can be discussed on the talk pages. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well referenced, distinct from Ain't, and more than a dicdef. —Angr 06:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knock me over with a feather. I didn't say it was nothing more than a dictionary definition; I said it was nothing more than a dictionary entry. Two straw-man arguments in a row! Amazing! Powers T 12:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your argument still doesn't hold, since it isn't a dictionary entry either. —Angr 16:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again you misinterpret my words. I didn't say it was a dictionary entry, which implies that it's written in correct dictionary style. I said it's nothing more than a dictionary entry, meaning no meaningful content would be lost by converting it into correct dictionary style. Powers T 22:47, 26 March 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, closed early per WP:SNOW. Postdlf (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Hughes[edit]

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

The subject is not independently notable. Notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is not an obituary or memorial, and it is not mere news. Evb-wiki (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've said it before, now I'll say it again: A good AfD can sometimes be the best thing for a borderline article. This article has much improved. Still, I think many of the notability arguments here rely too heavily on synthesis. That said, perhaps he was somewhat notable in his field. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, it appears that the only reason his death is getting attention is because of who his parents were, and the fact that he committed suicide just like his mother Sylvia Plath, and his stepmother. Other than that, he was just an average professor. The New York Times obituary headline is "Son of Sylvia Plath Commits Suicide," not "Nicholas Hughes Commits Suicide." According to the Times, "Mr. Hughes had lived an academic life largely outside the public eye." Postdlf (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Being in the "public eye" is not a criterion for notability of people. The criteria involve "significant coverage". While notability is not inherited, "significant coverage" may stem from who one's parents are or were. Being someone's son is not "one event" in as much as it is inappropriate to put significant biographical detail (even the quantum in this stub) in another person's article (the prescription for how to handle people notable for one event). Bongomatic 14:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to explain why he is an appropriate standalone topic from his mother and father's articles. That the suicide of Sylvia Plath's son got significant news coverage does not establish that her son is independently notable, such that he merits his own article. Postdlf (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The syllogism is this: (A) he meets criteria for inclusion (see WP:GNG and primary criteria at WP:BIO); (B) he fails to meet the criteria for inclusion in an article on another topic (see WP:ONEVENT); (C) coverage in Wikipedia occurs in articles; therefore (D) he merits an article with him as the primary subject. Bongomatic 15:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as clearly notable before his death which is why his death is picking up worldwide media coverage, this isn't even an open and shut case. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query - Can anyone find anything written about Hughes prior to his suicide? --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a Factiva search. He is mentioned in several articles about his parents, but not in a manner that I would consider non-trivial. However, the fact that coverage occurred after a single event (his death) does not mean that he is notable only for that event. Bongomatic 17:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was clearly written about after his mother's untimely death, The Times obit has several quotes from his Dad's noptable writings. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Almost certainly fails WP:PROF but seems to fall exactly into Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria: "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject," with "multiple independent sources" if the "depth of coverage is not substantial". Even if you hold that the depth of the various obituaries is not substantial, he has been covered by numerous independent reliable sources. Bongomatic 14:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'. Does not fail WP:PROF; see my vote below, which details results of searches on Google Scholar & ISI Web of Science, showing his work has been widely cited in the field of fisheries biology. --Yksin (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the times has an article or obit on his death, he's notable.T hat's a standard consideration here. DGG (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cmt - Only, it's not an obit for Nicholas Hughes. It's an article discussing (in 5 1-sentence paragraphs) his death as it relates to the Plath/Hughes mystique. The bulk of the Times article (15+ paragraphs) is about his parents. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, The New York Times shows the article on its obituary page. Bongomatic 16:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is similar to Rob Knox which was nominated for deletion but was kept. This article is going through the same process. This article is notable but the article can be improved. SqueakBox mentioned that this person is notable before death the article needs more research.--SkyWalker (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • His death was just announced today, and many of you read like vultures ripping a carcass. "Well, he's dead, so now we can kill him further. Into the memory hole with him." KEEP, as a matter of human decency over Asperger-like Wiki-nerd insensitivity. -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should be more concerned here with sensitivity towards other Wikipedia contributors per WP:CIVIL. Don't insult others just because you disagree with them. Postdlf (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a matter of disagreement. If this wasn't occurring on the same day his sister announced his death, so people weren't exhibiting such ghoulish timing, I wouldn't say a word. I don't have an opinion on whether he's notable or not, but he's been in here for some time now, and this is in incredibly bad taste to vote upon on this day. I change what I meant. I withdraw "Keep" as also inappropriate and suggest TABLE until a better day. -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has only had an article on Wikipedia since today. [21] The article has no source even a week old. It's a shame in a significant list of tragedies, it's merely today's news in terms of encyclopedic merit. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I was wrong about the length of time the article was up. I should have looked more closely. That does change the appearance of things, I grant you. -- Davidkevin (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cmt however I do recall photos and articles about him prior to his death. Hard to find because the name Nicholas Hughes is incredibly common, and omitting all 'suicide' from search only excludes those that connect him to his mother. However, he is specifically mentioned in the poems of both his mother and father Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes as you will see from some sources Ive place on the articles talk page.--Moloch09 (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if you add "marine bilogist" to the search, you get nothing but obits. [22] --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Evb-wiki. You asked a simple question both above and on the article's talk page: "Can anyone find anything written about Hughes prior to his suicide?" When I added "marine biologist" "nicholas hughes" and minused "suicide", a google search came up with 30 articles of which all but one are records of his work. Though a google count is no arbiter in this matter, I think your question has been answered. --Moloch09 (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you post a link, 'cause I'm not seeing it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, meant to do that "nicholas+hughes"+"marine+biology"+-suicide&start=20&sa=N&filter=0--Moloch09 (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only thing notable about Hughes is his parents. Yes, its news right now -- again, because of his parents. This is not worthy of a seperate article in Wikipedia. --CPAScott (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Inspired/influenced poems by both parents. Death being covered by press internationally. J. Van Meter (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Borderline notability for his academic work, but combined with his background and his significance in his mother's poetry, I think it's clear he's notable. Davidkevin, I think it might be appropriate for you to apologise for your remarks about other users, and especially your invocation of Asperger's syndrome as a term of abuse. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have ADHD, my elder son has ADHD and Asperger's. It wasn't meant as abuse but as a comparative descriptive, to show the level of insensitivity I perceived -- but I also made an error of fact which changes the appearance. I apologize for that, and for being too colorful in trying to make my point. -- Davidkevin (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. And add him to the Death page 66.255.29.70 (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Death page? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The 'notability is not inherited' premise can be qualified here. He spent much of his life deliberately outside the public gaze but the manner of death and echo of mother's suicide makes this sadly notable. --Moloch09 (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Moloch09. --Kaven (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - if only because it's useful to use the fate of Nicholas Hughes to put the Plath "legend" into a context that's based firmly in reality as opposed to the myth that's been built up. There were and still are intensely hostile feelings towards Ted Hughes by Plath's supporters. They tend to pin all the blame for Plath's death on Hughes. The Plath-supporters' theory is that it's all Ted Hughes' fault and without him in her life, Plath's life would have been all ponies & rainbows etc. The other side of the argument (which doesn't get as much air-time) is that Plath had attempted suicide before she'd even met Ted Hughes and had a history of depressive illness. The antipathy of Plath fans towards Ted Hughes are so intense that Plath-extremists (for want of a better term) have taken take direct action i.e. used chisels to remove the name "Hughes" from Plath's tombstone. This has happened repeatedly over the years since Plath's death in 1963. So, the intellectual arguments have gone beyond the theoretical and spilled over into direct action, or vandalism if you prefer to call it that. There's a theory that depression can have a genetic basis i.e. Nicholas Hughes may have inherited it from his Mother. In time, other details may surface which support this view. So, this article is useful if only to counteract over 45 years of anti-Hughes propaganda published in the press, books and magazine articles and also taught in schools & universities. Therefore, it's a mistake to delete the Nicholas Hughes article. Nabokov (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a rhetorical question, but I'd appreciate a real response as it goes to my difference in analyzing these issues with most of the above commenters. Why should there not also be a Death of Nicholas Hughes article? Clearly his death is notable, given its coverage in multiple, independent sources. Postdlf (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A couple of people have claimed he fails notability as an academic. I disagree. Per Wikipedia:Notability (academics), an academic meets notability requirements if "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." A search in Google Scholar on the search terms ""nicholas hughes" and "salmon" immediately brings up 20 articles of which Hughes was author or coauthor, 8 of which have been cited by at least 14 later articles in the field. In fact, his 1998 article in Ecology has been cited 55 times (of journals included in Google Scholar). And that's just using the term "salmon" with his name. Searches in Web of Science (part of ISI Web of Science Knowledge) show similar results. All of which indicates that, regardless of his notability as the son of Sylvia Plath & Ted Hughes, he is also independently notable as a scientist in the field of fisheries biology. --Yksin (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Nick Hughes" (+Alaska and/or +salmon) returns hits in Google Scholar as well. J. Van Meter (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable, no question about it. And no, although someone may choose to live a private life, they cannot choose NOT to be notable . . . particularly if they are the offspring of Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes and then decide to commit suicide. I'm sincerely sorry for him and for his family, but this is clearly and undeniably of public interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardiste (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Clearly notable. He is the son of famous author who was not a great author (but an above average author) and who is mostly famous for committing suicide and now he, the son and subject of this article, has committed suicide. Notability comes from the strange circumstances of the mother's and son's lives.--InaMaka (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- On page 24 of this grant proposal Hughes' ten page resume begins [23]. I suggest the nominator withdraw this nomination. Geo Swan (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Grounds given for deletion are weak. Xanthoxyl (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Grounds given for deletion are insubstantial, particularly when compared to some other Wikipedia articles which have been proposed for deletion but then kept. Speaking personally, I was interested in this man since reading about him some time ago in his father's letters. Testbed (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability sometimes is inherited: people who would be otherwise be unremarkable nevertheless fulfil the basic guideline of independent coverage in reliable sources, just because of who their parents are - especially when the incidents of their lives and deaths give rise to public meditations on the heritability of temperament. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "I've said it before, now I'll say it again: A good AfD can sometimes be the best thing for a borderline article." Evb-wiki (nominator)
Use the talk page before jumping to AfD and give it time to develop if its borderline - it is a waste of limited WP resources. Yeah people jumped in to save it but they could have been doing other things. AfD is not meant as a tool for expanding an article and if you keep doing i than your abusing the system of good faith. Green Cardamom (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominated this article in good faith. I still don't believe it's a slam dunk. I still don't see any reliable secondary source written about his life or personal/professional achievenments that was written before his death. And, again, recognizing his notability is largely a matter of synthesis. Sorry you wasted your time. Neither I nor serveral others wasted ours. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite the deletionist ramblings of inherited notability, the ample reliable and verifiable sources that cover the individual independently of his parents establish any and all standards of notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of either his professional achievements or his secondary notability as the son and subject matter of two famous people. On the first count, let's remember that you don't have to be universally noted to qualify for an entry here; notability within a field or large community is enough. There are plenty of scientists here that few of us know of. And as a famous son, he surely compares with, say, Christopher Robin, who has an entry. This article will be stronger when someone adds a little more of what Hughes himself felt about being the son and subject matter of his parents.
I'd also note the recent nomination for deletion of the Susan Tsvangirai article, the result of which was 'keep'. He is more personally notable than she was, bless the memories of both of them. Earthlyreason (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ThreeOneFive (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe he is significant to literary students who wants to better understand Plath, Hughes, and Wevill. While not specifically notable (either deliberately dodging the public gaze or merely choosing to achieve outside of the literary circle), he nevertheless factors into a deeper understanding of the poetry of his parents. His death, while tragic, does not add to nor diminish his importance. (Jch21)
  • Keep. It says much for Nick's abilities and reputation in scientific circles that he was well known to New Zealand colleagues half a world away from Fairbanks. His Amercican Fisheries Society obituary [24] provides a perspective on his scientific life and work with only marginal reference to his family life and the cicrumstances of his death. Unwinm (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That's not actually an obit from the American Fisheries Society -- they simply provided a complete verbatim copy of the article his friend Dermot Cole wrote in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner -- though I certainly agree with you that it's a good source. (Seems like the local Fairbanks sources were the best for actually discussing him & his work, rather than simply his role as the son of his literary parents.) --Yksin (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited? Are you kidding me? Then we should delete Ivanka Trump's entry, and that of many "children of" that populate wikipedia pages. KEEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.239.27 (talk) 22:15, 24 March 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 (nomination withdrawn). Concerns have been addressed. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Single use foodservice packaging[edit]

Single use foodservice packaging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Essay. Was also tagged {{db-spam}}, but that has little chance of success. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definitely not spam, but clearly an essay. Delete. Comes off as a bit of a coat rack for environmental concerns thereunto pertaining. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change vote to keep, largely as per WP:AGF. Still essay flavored, but if the author is willing to work on it like this, then yeah, we can keep it. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV essay/rant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The current article is poorly written, but I believe an article on the topic, either at Single use foodservice packaging or at Foodservice packaging, is most likely appropriate. [25] It seems that a lot of research and testing goes into foodservice packaging [26], and there are even awards for foodservice packaging. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do have a really awesome, NPOV and well-sourced article at Packaging and labeling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I don't think it's the same topic. From what I understand, the article we are discussing here is more about the wrapper around your Big Mac, or the styrofoam plates they give you at the mall's food court. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just want to confirm that, while the names might be similar, single use foodservice packaging is not the same thing as the packaging you find on grocery store shelves. I am sorry for any confusion (ironically, the confusion is the reason I wanted to write this article). Thank you again for your time and consideration. Hrundle (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It might have started with an essay-style tone but this is definitely viable as a WP article. Restaurant packaging is just part of daily life, and only a portion of the article is about environmental issues; it's mostly cost and sanitary reasons. Remember that Wikipedia is not the New Yorker; the nuts and bolts of restaurant management is a perfectly fine topic here. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the author. I made some changes (deleted some portions) and added more content on the history of single use foodservice packaging and the materials used. I left a mark on the page to please hold and reconsider, but it was removed for some reason. If you able to, please consider reviewing the article again. I would really like to get this right. Thank you for your time and comments. Hrundle (talk) 15:38, 24 March 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) 17:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition casualties in the war in Afghanistan[edit]

Coalition casualties in the war in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This new article is forked out of a dispute at Talk:Coalition casualties in Afghanistan#Canadian soldier killed at the logistics base and is largely a duplicate of Coalition casualties in Afghanistan. Some discussion preceding the forking can be viewed at Talk:Coalition casualties in Afghanistan#Canadian soldier killed at the logistics base. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Strong Keep It's not a copy. First of all this list doesn't contain the names of the soldiers killed, second except for the list of names I have removed a lot of the other text from this article, change a lot of it and added some new. Yes there are still some points in the article that are the same as that other one but that is to be expected since both articles cover ALMOST the same thing. But it's not the same thing. That other article has been presented as a list of coalition soldiers killed in the war in Afghanistan, but it is not is it? It only lists soldiers killed within the borders of Afghanistan and not those killed in the surrounding countries who also died supporting the war in Afghanistan. There is at least a hundred soldiers killed in surrounding countries in the war in Iraq and not in Iraq but are listed as the victims of that war. Hundreds of US soldiers were killed during the Vietnam war in Cambodia or Laos and not just exclusivly withing Vietnam itself but are listed as victims of that war. All links in the article War in Afghanistan link to that other article so people think that is the true number of soldiers killed, but it is not is it, it's totaly misrepresenting. There NEEDS to be a FULL list of ALL soldiers killed as the result of the War in Afghanistan. I tried to reason this with an anonymous user at the original article but he wouldn't accept even a bit of a compromise. There needs to be a solid list of all coalition fatalities that have resulted from the war in Afghanistan and not just exclusivly within the borders of that country. BobaFett85 (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Deletion This is a POV fork by user BobaFett85 as evidenced by his own comments on the discussion page of the original article (Talk:Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan#Canadian_soldier_killed_at_the_logistics_base). User BobaFett85 further proceeded to hijack links for the original established article in an attempt to supplant the original article with his own personalized duplicate version: [27], [28], [29]
74.12.221.240 (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This a POV fork, and is simply to create an amendment to the numbers of Canadian Casualties. Why doesn't BobaFett85 simply edit the Canadian Casualties article, which is similar to the British one?? While he is at it, create a American_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan as well.. Sorry, but the original article is sound. This is just a copy, to support his own POV. Personally, I believe the original page at Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan should be an overview page anyway. Jez t e C 13:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete As above. let us obey consesus [[Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
Additional comment It is not just to create an amendment to the numbers of Canadian Casualties, what's wrong with you people? This list also makes an amendment to the number of American casualties as well, the real number of American soldiers killed in the war in Afghanistan has also been totaly diminished in that article by Users just because they were not killed within the borders of Afghanistan. This list is not just about the Canadian, about 30 US soldiers are also not listed on that other article just because editors don't want to list them because they were not killed in Afghanistan itself, but officialy they did died in support of the war. Also, I didn't hijack any links, it sounds like I commited a crime. I only linked the main article of the War in Afghanistan and the template of the War in Afghanistan to this article because readers of Wikipedia need to see the REAL number of soldiers killed in the war. That other article is totaly missleading and if anything that other article should be deleated not this one. I changed this article enough so they are not that much the same and was going to change it a lot more in the comming days. This one deals with all Coalition casualties in the war and that other only within the country. The number here is around 30 bigger than in that other article. I'm not trying to push my POV, I just want to show the reader the real number of soldiers killed, again that other article is missleading. A copy? It certainly is not, at the very least there are maybe just a dozen or so sentances that ARE copies from that previous article, but the rest is written totaly by me.BobaFett85 (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - POV fork, also possibly being used to make a WP:POINT... Also taken from the above quoted talk page "I have a compromise proposition. I myself will delete that additional article I created right here and right now if we added a subsection in the old article where we would specificly mention that beside those killed" - appears to be using this article for blackmail. Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a trap! This is essentially an editorial dispute and it doesn't belong here. If we say "delete" then we're endorsing one view, and if we say "merge" we're endorsing another. But AfD isn't WP:WQA or WP:AN/I. Speedy close without resolution here (i.e. as "no consensus").—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a trap! I agree, this is essentially an editorial dispute about the proper number of coalition casualties--it sounds from a quick read of the involved articles that it could be solved with some proper labeling of the various types of casualties. Publicus 18:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that the creation of the article was a WP:POINT should not stop us from deleting an obviously inappropriate POV fork. The fact that one side or the other would use the outcome of this AFD discussion to "prove" their point also should have no influence on the decision. I suggest deletion of the article (if consensus is to delete, which it seems it will be) and the closing admin specifically commenting that the AFD only means the article should be deleted, it has no opinion on the content dispute one way or another, and that an RFC needs to be opened before either side can claim consensus. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly support this view. We should be voting on the merits of the article itself rather than worrying about endorsing a POV. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly agree with this view as well. (Disclosure: I guess I'm one of the parties of the editorial dispute, unfortunately ...) Deleting the POV fork article does not endorse any side of the editorial dispute. On the other hand, not deleting this clear-cut POV fork article does endorse and encourage POV forking and disruption (WP:POINT). 70.24.198.48 (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a closer approximation to an appropriate Wikipedia article than the other one. The list of individual casulties is excessive detail there. That should have been the one nominated for deletion.DGG (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue here is that this page was created as a POV fork, not because of the quality of the other page (other then not representing the creator of this pages POV about which deaths should be included). The other page is far too long and does contain toomuch detail, but that does not remove the fact this page is POV forking.17:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unneeded duplicate article. Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Redundant. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:21, 28 March 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. I do not see consensus for having even a redirect. But BLP does not apply.--as I would have thought glaringly obvious. DGG (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Mosley[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY . — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 09:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. People will search for his name, so we might as well be helpful. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to FedEx Express Flight 80 as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLP1E. --DAJF (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect per above (1 event, news, etc) -M.Nelson (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. DFS454 above sums it up best. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect per DFS454/Lilac soul. While his relatives who apparently created the article have my sympathy, wikipedia is not the place for this. Try Facebook or some other social networking site. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DFS454. A redirect to the main article doesn't make any sense to me. Lexo (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is pretty blatant WP:POV. I understand someone cared for him enough to create a page for him, but it has got to go. Some of the info. can be moved to FedEx Express Flight 80 if that page stays. [email protected] (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to FedEx Express Flight 80 Spikydan1 (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to FedEx Express Flight 80, or delete is also fine with me. - Mailer Diablo 14:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete per above comment. --Resplendent (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete. Leaning towards "delete" since this will likely become a completely unused redirect in a very short time. A serach of the name would automatically bring up the main article anyway. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as discussed. My prayers are with his family. Zerbey (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect but not delete. Redirects are cheap and this is a plausible search term at the moment.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The strong consensus appears to be to redirect to FedEx Express Flight 80 per policy and precedent. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to FedEx Express Flight 80 as the subject doesn't appear to be notable apart from the crash. A redirect is appropriate as this pilot's name is a plausible search term. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think people who didn't know him would search for his name as he wasn't sufficiently well known. So a redirect is missing the point here. --DFS454 (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My rationale for a redirect is that if people run across his name (likely in news reports about the crash, or in the future in material related to FedEx and safety), then they very well may search for his name to see more about him. In that case, a redirect to the article about the crash is appropriate and helpful, since it will have a mention of him as pilot. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above by DFS454. Farmercarlos (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible delete per DFS454. I think there should be a modicum of common sense (and a precedent for CSD) involved with new articles when all we know about a person is how they died. This is becoming a real issue on WP - somebody dies, and somebody else needs to make their "clainm to fame" by being the one who got them on Wikipedia instead of utilizing some brains to write a useful article. MSJapan (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Nom / notability. BIO1E. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into FedEx Express Flight 80. GiantSnowman 18:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. No qualms with a redirect to the article on the crash after deletion. youngamerican (wtf?) 18:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this is a current event. Redo the AfD in six or nine months and there'll probably not be a single redirect or objection to delete. But now, somebody is interested. Besides, the article has no info other than he died 66.255.29.70 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC) (Note: I have moved this comment from the top of the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:59, 23 March 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 08:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Sutton[edit]

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

Questionable notability. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article has received news coverage in dozens if not hundreds of articles. Specifically, he has received treatment in full-length articles focused solely on him by the Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal (two references that were cited in the stub article upon creation). Bongomatic 23:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Notability weakly established by coverage in reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the notability here is not weak, and certainly not marginal or questionable. Searches on Google News for "Marvin Sutton" and "Marvin Popcorn Sutton" produce enough significant results from reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given how well known he was and how many times he'd been interviewed by various media, I see no question that he's notable enough for a Wikipedia entry.--VaGuy1973 (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Enough significance in reliable sources to establish notability. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Drmies.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep An article in the NYT is sufficient for notability. That source, and the WSJ, were both present from the very start of the nomination. DGG (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG - The New York Times, AP, Wall Street Journal, are all great cites. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - referenced and notable from the very start of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 26 March 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. SNOW probably, could also call it patent nonsense Tone 22:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morose Forest[edit]

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

A very strange article. I cannot find this forest on a map, and no WP:RS indicates notability or even verifiability. "The events in 1993" of which "The government hides the facts" is most probably pure bull. Punkmorten (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only source is a blog entry created yesterday. Not a reliable source. If this was true, I don't think there would have been a problem finding sources. Rettetast (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear WP:HOAX and WP:BULL. I used to live a few hundred meters away and went jogging in the area several times a week. Though spooky at night, the area noted on the map is part of a larger forest area covering the mountain side, and does not have it own name, unless it can be verified from an official source. Arsenikk (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the only source quoted is a blog whose author "can't remember was it a dream or a news report." 'Nuff said. JohnCD (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this load of WP:BOLLOCKS per WP:SNOW.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may or may not be a hoax; may or may not be something made up in one day; but it is certainly not verifiable. Delete. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and bury in the woods at the dead of night. Obvious hoax. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:59, 23 March 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. this is a content dispute. take to BLP noticeboard if necessary. DGG (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remo Mancini[edit]

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

The Remo Mancini page has been tagged for deletion

Please take 5 minutes to read the current Windsor Star newspaper articles contained in the links below. You will note that after reading the enclosed Windsor Star newspaper articles and comparing the information contained therein with the 'information' contained in the Remo Mancini article, that the author(s) of the Remo Mancini article is(are) attempting to cover up the fact that the subject individual is mired in controversy.

Given the well-documented controvery surrounding the subject individual, the Remo Mancini article is little more than mis-information and self-promotional in nature. It has not been cleaned up since the NPOV; or Non-notable tags have been placed on the article, and therefore the article itself should be deleted.

Please consider seconding the AfD nomination of the Remo Mancini article on the Wikipedia:AfD page.

Windsor Star newspaper article links

It was the dumbest thing I ever heard

Development commission grills contrite Mancini

Mancini still earning $1,200-a-day as acting CEO

Resign now, Mancini urged

Full forensic audit essential

Development commission board gone for good

Local jobless number jumps to 12.6% Under Mancini's watch

WEWhistleBlower (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and fix. It seems that we agree that he is notable but you want the article deleted anyway? That doesn't make sense. There may be a lot wrong with this article but if the subject is notable then we have to fix it. As I said on the talkpage: "The article claims that he was a cabinet minister in the regional government. If this is true (and can be demonstrated with references) then that would seem to cover notability OK. Unfortunately no references are provided to prove it.". Assuming we can get that referenced then the next step will be including all notable and reliable information about him in a balanced way and to remove any non-notable trivia (e.g. the stuff about being an gymnast, which might not merit inclusion) --DanielRigal (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change vote to Speedy keep. I have Googled him and this guy is notable both for his political and his business life. The regional cabinet post now has an RS reference. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:57, 23 March 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. BJTalk 10:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoring and Measurement in the Next Generation Technologies[edit]

Monitoring and Measurement in the Next Generation Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is full of marketing speak and advertising. It would need a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. I nominated it for WP:CSD#G11 speedy deletion, but Stifle declined it because the article has been around for a while. I recommend deletion because it's an unsalvageable mess. Mgm|(talk) 12:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as blatant spam and patent nonsense: ... a project aimed at integrating different platforms for network monitoring and measurement to develop a common and open pan-European infrastructure. The system will include both passive and active monitoring and measurement techniques via a common web services interface and ontology that allows semantic queries. I find it amusing that the authors claim that whatever it is they're selling here contains an ontology, but obviously whoever wrote that was desperately trying to sound impressive without saying anything specific. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Stifle declined the speedy, it won't fly anyway. - Mgm|(talk) 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nonsense either. With a dictionary at your side you can decipher what it means. Patent nonsense has a specific meaning. - Mgm|(talk) 22:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Patent nonsense includes "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." Buzzword bingo counts. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a distinction between patent nonsense, and mere bad writing. The manner of writing this is not really appropriate for a Wikipedia article, but that is fixable. It needs shorter paragraphs,and removal of sentences and parts of sentences that provide rhetoric without advancing the argument or providing actual information. There is overuse of jargon, but it's reasonably standard jargon and I think used correctly. DGG (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose the other question is whether this subject, whatever it is, merits an article. About all I was able to get out of it was that it was a "project" that has something to do with measuring Internet traffic or creating standards for measuring Internet traffic. This may or may not be a worthy article subject: much would depend on who is in charge of the project, and I must admit that I wearied of its meaningless gee-whiz prose (Future generation networks are heterogeneous as never before) well before I found the part that might tell me. The references supplied, again, seem to be about the problems allegedly addressed by this project rather than the project and its backers themselves.

    I find it interesting also that what appears to be the official site of this project, whatever it is, links directly to its Wikipedia article, and the rest of the site is rather sketchy. This suggests to me that they're using Wikipedia as a free web host. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This subject may or may not deserve an article, but I am quite certain that no article is better than this article. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Kubigula under WP:CSD#G7. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Leong[edit]

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

Promotional piece, no sources, flowery copy by self-professed "manager" to promote subject, an admin removed speedy notice and recommended AfD. Alexf(talk) 12:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The article needs a complete makeover, but the subject appears to meet notability guidelines. There is some Gnews coverage and some in-depth Malaysia, Star, articles. He seems to be something of a celebrity in that part of the world. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:25, 23 March 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. MBisanz talk 08:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drummond Street, Edinburgh[edit]

Drummond Street, Edinburgh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Non-notable street in Edinburgh. Prod declined on the basis that "every street in Edinburgh old town is probably notable". In that case, this is certainly one of the least notable. The article sums up this street quite well - there are about three pubs, maybe a couple of restaurants, one or two shops, the rear entrance to some university buildings, and some flats. It is more like any street in the South Side of Edinburgh, rather than the Old Town. It may merit a mention in the Flodden Wall article, which used to run along its north side, but this street is really not worthy of an article for itself. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as nominator. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's obvious, and unnecessary. The nomination is enough. This is not a vote. Uncle G (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing about streets, especially about streets that have been around for long periods of time, is that what's on the street now is not the only thing that can be said about the street. You've shown no indication that you've actually performed the necessary research to determine whether this street is notable. This research (per Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do) comprises looking for sources yourself.

    I suggest that if you want to make a case that something is non-notable, you show that you've actually done your homework and checked to see whether that really is the case, by putting in the effort of looking for sources yourself. You might be surprised. For starters, you'll find out what Robert Louis Stevenson was doing when he was "buying pencils" on this street. Uncle G (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Robert Stevenson bought pencils here? Wow, so not only are there shops there now, there used to be shops there in the past? That surely makes this street one in a million. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uniqueness is not necessary for notability. 128.59.179.133 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, he didn't. The fact that you don't know what he did do indicates that you still haven't done your homework and looked for sources yourself. (It's a fact that looking for sources onesself on this subject turns up quite quickly.) Uncle G (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Nomination fails WP:BEFORE.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you call "SNOW" with the first "keep" vote? And how do you know the nomination fails WP:BEFORE? JohnCD (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:SNOW because I think Uncle_G's remarks in combination with DGG's edit summary in declining the PROD suffice to decide the issue; I find them irrefutable. WP:BEFORE because we're talking about this street, just off the Royal Mile, next to the Royal College of Surgeons and the University of Edinburgh, just round the corner from the Royal Museum of Scotland and the Edinburgh Festival Theatre. Wikipedia's notability threshold for geographical locations is low enough to include literally thousands of places with a population under 100.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it's nearly as clear-cut as you make out. The street is 300 yards from the Royal mile, not "just off"; The map in Edinburgh Old Town shows it as actually running along the edge of the old town rather than being part of it - cf. nominator's reference to the wall that used to be there, and his comment that it's "more like any street in the South Side of Edinburgh, rather than the Old Town." You can make a case for notability on the basis that it's near some notable things, but that doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees hasn't done their homework. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. But not finding the RLS fact that turns up quite readily when one does do that homework is a good indicator of not doing it. Uncle G (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This street has a substantial proportion of listed buildings, which are likely notable themselves. Numbers 1, 2-22, 3, 5, 27-35 and 36-37 are all class B listed buildings.[30] JulesH (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would think any street within an UNESCO World Heritage Site as this one is (Old Town, Edinburgh) would be considered de facto notable. Historic significance is further demonstrated by the number of Listed buildings on this street as demonstarted by JulesH. --Oakshade (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think it follows that the presence of listed buildings on a street necessarily renders it notable, unless there is actually something to say about the street. In areas like this, whole swathes of buildings are listed - it doesn't follow that every street is notable enough for an article; and this street actually marks the edge of the Old Town, where the wall used to be, rather than being part of it. Defensive note, as the original PRODder (stung by accusations of failing WP:BEFORE, which I think themselves fail WP:AGF): I PRODded this on the basis of an internet search, which showed me a listed building but not much else; I then checked three guidebooks and the Book of Edinburgh Anecdotes without finding anything to change my mind. I can't speak for the nominator, but his username and the quote on his user page suggest a knowledge of Scottish antiquities which make it unlikely that he nominated without knowing what he was talking about. JohnCD (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonetheless, the nomination here is quite clearly based upon nothing more than what the article itself told the nominator about the subject (even though it is a stub, and, of course, by definition not exhaustive on the subject), the nominator clearly isn't aware of one of the first things that turns up when one does look for sources on this subject (and is, indeed, in some guidebooks), and even when given a hint of a phrase to look for still doesn't put in the effort and doesn't still look any further than the words in the AFD discussion, and thinks that it's about buying pencils and shops. There's a difference between assuming good faith and assuming that the nominator has done and is doing something that xe clearly isn't doing, and is supposed to do.

      You did it (but you obviously didn't look at the right guidebooks, or haven't found the source that makes the association explicit). Don't let a simple quotation fool you into (a) making unfounded assumptions of expertise and (b) overlooking a clear lack of foundation for any argument as to notability. Notability isn't based upon claims to expertise by Wikipedia editors with pseudonyms, let alone upon outright assumptions of such expertise by others. It's based upon sources, their provenances and their depths. Jonathan Oldenbuck clearly hasn't looked for any at all, even after it being suggested that xe do so, so any argument that xe has as to whether such sources exist cannot hold water, because it doesn't have a foundation in the requisite research necessary for finding out whether sources exist.

      Don't trust someone with a literary quotation on xyr user page any more than you would trust someone like me, with nothing at all on xyr user page. You or I could add as many quotations as we liked to our user pages, and it wouldn't change a thing as to the validity of our arguments. Don't think that it magically does so for anyone else. (Even if you don't remember as far back as my first RFA, remember the more recent lesson of Essjay.) What count are sources, and evidence that one has pulled one's finger out and made the effort to look for sources onesself. The proper study of encyclopaedists is the finding, reading, evaluating, and using of sources. Uncle G (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have to partially correct JohnCD; maybe in places like these it's not strange many listed buildings, but what count is the status applied: of the 13 on the street, 9 are class B and 4 class A, the most preeminent, and there is a pretty universal agreement that all A and B class listed buildings are notable. Also, David Bryce built here one of Edinburgh's earliest hospitals, the Edinburgh's Surgical Hospital later made the City's second Fever Hospital [31], and well known Doctor Joseph Lister, 1st Baron Lister worked there. I also found that "A new Royal Infirmary of 228 beds was built and opened in 1741 in Drummond Street, to be extended by a surgical wing in 1832."[32] It was also the seat of the Department of Natural Philosophy, and, more interesting of that of Applied Mathematics, and in that department Nobel-winner Max Born had his office and laboratory.[33]. And now, apparently [34], there's the Department of Geography. Probably Cassell's old and new Edinburgh, the index of which signs 5 pages, could give more, but since it's post-1870 I can't read it.--Aldux (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is quite a notable street. I have added a reference to it in the New York Times. TerriersFan (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G, S Marshall, TerriersFan, and a host of others. Let it snow! Drmies (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I would suggest that an article on a city centre street, with good citations (such as this has) should be kept. On the other hand, those on minor suburban streets are probably better mereged into an article on the district where they are. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:28, 26 March 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. BJTalk 10:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Chára[edit]

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

Footballer not yet made his fully-professional debut. Chara played for Centauros in Categoría Primera B, but not the top division of Colombia. (Discussing Categoría Primera B is fully-pro or not please go to somewhere in WikiProject Football Matthew_hk tc 10:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ricardo Chara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been deleted through prod. Matthew_hk tc 10:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE; has not made an appearance in a fully-pro league, and youth caps do not confer notability. GiantSnowman 11:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alexf(talk) 12:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article suggests he played in the Copa Mustang but I suspect the author was confusing Ricardo Chará Lerma with Diego Chará Zamora (who does play for Quindío. Jogurney (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article says Chara plays in Italian Serie A, which if true would pass WP:ATHLETE, as it is a top professional league. I found a few sources that may verify this:[35]. Grsz11 16:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That link pretty emphatically proves that he hasn't played in Serie A, as it gives his total games played as zero.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no appearances in Serie A - so he is not notable. --Angelo (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 24 March 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. MBisanz talk 09:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 IDF T-Shirt controversy[edit]

2009 IDF T-Shirt controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Keep - By considering this for deletion there are certain questions arising about Wikipedia's neutrality. This is obviously a controversial incident worthy of archiving. Unless you're implying that this behaivour is very characteristic of the IDF. In addition, images of the t-shirt definitely need to be posted to give reader's a better idea. Talk) 27 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.36.48 (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is clearly recentism and applies to a small non-notable event. Wikipedia is not news, and maybe this article should be rewritten and moved to WikiNews. The article was also PRODded, but the tag was removed by the original author. Ynhockey (Talk) 09:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable controversy that belongs on WIkipedia. Factsontheground (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that similarly inappropriate articles exist is never an argument for keeping an inapropriate article. If You know of other arrticles that do not merit inclusion on Wikipedia, please list them so that they can be merged or eliminated as appropriate.Historicist (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
whose pov? bbc? jewish week? haaretz? provide the other pov ('aw shucks, thems just jokes'?) if you think its unbalanced. pov is not a reason for deletion, notability is. untwirl(talk) 20:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the IDF isn't the sole source in the world, and is in fact not reliable whereas the sources used in the article, Haaretz, The Times, SKY, are. Nableezy (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Same reasons as RolandR Wodge (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Classic POV. Guy0307 (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to somewhere suitable like Israel Defense Forces#Controversies. A touch on the newsy side, but there are a lot of reliable sources available here - BBC News, MSNBC, Sky News. Black Kite 22:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So far, four users (Roland, Malik, Untwirl and Wodge) have suggested keeping the article in order to "expand to include also Israeli soldiers' testimony of war crimes and wanton murder during the attack on Gaza". Clearly, this is not an argument, but more importantly, it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the affair. Not coincidentally, this is the same misunderstanding effected by the way the article is written. The affair has absolutely nothing to do with war crimes and "wanton murder" committed by the IDF in Gaza, whether or not these were committed. Neither the soldiers who ordered the shirts nor anyone else claim that the messages on the shirts portray events that actually happened, and the soldiers interviewed made it quite clear that the messages were facetious. Anyone who does not understand the affair, either because they didn't read the original news item or because their prejudice regarding the IDF renders them incapable of basic reading comprehension, should not be considered qualified to comment in this discussion, and their votes should be discounted. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your insults. I understand the situation perfectly. The t-shirts are symptomatic of the reaction of IDF soldiers to what happened in Gaza, which is why expanding the article to include the recent soldiers' testimony makes logical sense. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

random break, cont.[edit]

  • And yet there is no indication in the original news item that the shirts have anything to do with the recent Gaza conflict; in fact, at least some of the shirts seem to have been made before the conflict started, so they could hardly be "symptomatic of the reaction of IDF soldiers to what happened in Gaza". Least of all is there any connection to war crimes or wanton murder, in Gaza or anywhere else. Several explanations are offered in the news item as to why the shirts were created, none of which mention war crimes or wanton murder. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet there is no reason for insults. And who has reading comprehension problems? The article does connect some of the t-shirts to the Gaza conflict. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If by "insults" you mean my implication that some users, including you, seemed either not to have read the news item or to be prejudiced against the IDF to the point of not understanding it, I disagree. I don't consider the implication an insult, and I think there are good, substantive reasons for expressing that view of the situation. As for the article, there is one shirt out of many connected to "Gaza", possibly meaning the recent conflict, and there are zero out of many connected to war crimes or wanton murder, in Gaza or anywhere else. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no connection? perhaps you missed this [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-military-condemns-soldiers-shocking-tshirts-1651333.html , "The practice came to light following disclosures that soldiers who took part in Israel's military offensive in Gaza complained about rules of engagement allowing them to kill civilians and destroy property. The Israel Defence Forces said yesterday that the T-shirts "are not in accordance with IDF values and are simply tasteless. This type of humour is unacceptable. Commanders are instructed to use disciplinary tools against those who produce T-shirts of this type." untwirl(talk) 02:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still having problems with the reading comprehension, Jalapenos? There are at least two references to t-shirts associated with the Gaza conflict. (Hint: The Gaza offensive was code-named Operation Cast Lead.) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you and Untwirl have illustrated your mistake better than I could. Saying that B happened after A is not saying that B is a reflection of A, although someone prejudiced to think that everything is a reflection of A could be forgiven for thinking so. What they would not be forgiven for is trying to edit an encyclopedia article on B while blinded by this prejudice. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"blinded by prejudice"? tone done the rhetoric, please. you must have missed the many sources that have covered the soldiers' testimony and the revelation of these tshirts as related to soldiers' conduct in gaza. try these, for example [36] [37] untwirl(talk) 20:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you consider Jalapeno's comments insults, you have a paper thin skin, and live a very sheltered life, OR are a melodramatic crybaby. Take your pick. Of course, Jalapenos is wrong regarding sourcing, but trying to redefine this article beyond is topic is typical POVFORKing, a much bigger wrong. There is an article for the Gaza war, 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict, where a section called "Controversy over rules of engagement and military rabbis" exists, and perhaps should be expanded. This article is about the t-shirt controversy, and should remain so.--Cerejota (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please take note that the article Mechinat Rabin, which was recently created, includes information on the testimonies controversy, so the T-shirt controversy is a separate case and the two should not be mixed just because they came almost at the same time. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article seems based on a single news-piece published on March 20. In that sense, I don't quite yet see an article devoted solely to the "incarcerated effigy" of Gilad Shalit based on the few articles that published the story which occurred around the same time and had far more exposure.[38] JaakobouChalk Talk 01:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't object to this article being moved to WikiNews, but Wikipedia is not the place for it, as the article right now is a classic case of WP:RECENTISM. Khoikhoi 03:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has significantly improved since the AfD nomination. Certainly very notable in Israel. "t-shirts gaza" returns over 666 gnews ghits, more than many other sub-topics. Sources like the Associated Press, The BBC, The Times, and of course Ha'aretz (who broke the story), clearly demonstrate and establish notability (this is contrary to those who have argued there is only one source). There is a long history of coverage of such mediatic/peripheral controversy in the WP:ARBPIA topic area, and while each article should be considered on its own, the sources sustaining this article are of a much higher quality than, say, Pallywood, and I do not see a reason to break this systemic consensus now. I diasgree about "recentism", this is precisely the type of controversy that becomes legendary in these types of intractable conflicts. The idiot that came up with this brilliant idea will get a medal from Hamas - All we have to do is report it.--Cerejota (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It's not that notable in Israel. I haven't seen Ynet or any TV News pick up on it. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cerejota, all the new sources you brought are simply summaries or restatements of the original Haaretz article. You've said, and I agree with you, that the fact that something is mentioned by reliable sources doesn't necessarily make it notable enough even for inclusion in an existing article, much less for receiving its own article. If this affair were notable, the least we would expect is for the media to do some independent investigating, which they haven't. A celebrity's new haircut gets nore media attention than this has. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Tidy page, why delete? Chendy (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

random break #2[edit]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google hits aren't a qualifier for notability. All those sources are simply reporting the same thing, big deal. If we are going to make articles for every "insulting" clothing a Middle Eastern soldier might wear in their free time then we have a lot of work to do. Edit: I suggest the user move the article to a userspace if their is potential for improvement. A fork is a fork, leaving it on wikipedia to "improve" is a dubious goal. The process has violated standard policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not think there is a single other instance of encyclopedia in this realm of ours which includes such a colorful fashion related article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict? the t-shirts do provide verifiable evidence of IDF culture. pohick (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major political information in its own right, and the coverage by the press shows it. The clothing in the context of the war represents the sort of idiotic bravado that is being widely seen in the world as justifying the view of the Israeli tactics during the war as deliberate and criminal. DGG (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a notable current military scandal referenced to independent, mainstream third party sources. You may have noticed that its in all the papers. The rush by so many of a certain political viewpoint to delete this topic should suggest that they too consider it quite notable. T L Miles (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, it is user:Gilabrand, one of those who "rushed to delete" the article, who is largely responsible for it now being a reasonable article (covering a non-notable topic), as opposed to the amateurish POV exposition it originally was. Perhaps not everyone who disagrees with you is motivated by sinister political concerns? Hmmm? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's odd, cause I never said, nor do I believe "everyone who disagrees with [me] is motivated by sinister political concerns". Merely that the flood of POV deletion arguments is an additional suggestion that the topic is well known and quite notable. You really should avoid assumptions of conspiracies. T L Miles (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what can I say. If you consider the fact that a bunch of people are saying "this topic is not notable" as evidence that the topic is notable, a conversation with you is not likely to be productive. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He also did, in your words, disrupt wikipedia to make a point by putting in random nonsense, so I wouldnt be so quick to say that sinister political concerns are not at all an issue. Nableezy (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gilabrand is a she. She did disrupt the article to make a point about the article's notability, and then fixed the article up. Both of these actions are consistent with a motive of simply thinking that the topic is non-notable, but preferring a good article on a non-notable topic to a bad article, and being willing to spend time and effort to make it good. The actions are not consistent, however, with a motive of realizing that the article's topic is notable and then trying to censor it for political reasons, which is the motive ascribed by Miles to "many" of those advocating deletion (though he then tried to backtrack). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Black Kite and WP:N. Plenty of sources exist in significant newspapers for something that isn't one-event. Thus we should have an article. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not only related to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, reports mention shirts from Lebanon war and that many of these shirts are bought at the completion of training, so I dont think a merge to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict would be appropriate. Press coverage shows notability. Nableezy (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I read the entire article, and think its a fine addition to the encyclopedia. Shows the mentality of some of the Israeli soldiers. This is an incident that should be recorded, to demonstrate the mindset of the soldiers in that area at this time in history. Dream Focus 19:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article is based on a single news-piece published on March 20 and distributed over wire services rehashing each other. Non-notable, non-encyclopedic, no other like article exists elsewhere in WP. The article does not even fit into the seemingly relevant cats. --Shuki (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think a lot of the users either aren't understanding the situation or refuse to. "IDF-T-shirt controversy" is not only an inherently POV title, it is false. These soldiers bought the t-shirts on their own time without sanctioning from the IDF. Also, notability does not = news coverage. At the most, this should be merged into the Israeli Gaza conflict and MAYBE the IDF, which the author of this article *shocking* already did. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte until further sources exist. Without new sources, this article can't be NPOV. Guy0307 (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not right now? Nableezy (talk) 07:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have no idea at all how widespread the T-shirts were, or if they existed at all. One testimony picked up by the media around the world is not enough. Guy0307 (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know they existed because there are pictures of them. Check the links at the bottom of the article, and you can look at them. Most disturbing. Dream Focus 09:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not one soldiers testimony, there are a number of interviews in the Haaretz piece on it. Nableezy (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Today's (25/iii/2009) Haaretz has an article on T-Shirts with slogans and insignia of Israeli Army units. It quotes this article and puts it in a broader context. Phil_burnstein (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

link to what you are talking about please. Dream Focus 09:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Keep or Merge by Editor:Black Kite and Editor:Wikifan. @Editor:Jalepeno...Anyone that can see the humor in advocating despicable acts of violence and ignore the harmful side effects of War on us all (human species) may need to get a physical checkup. Diagnosis?....skin too thick!--Buster7 (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the threshold for inclusion is notability and this article is sourced. The topic of the article goes beyond the context of a single event, because it shows the mindset of a group of soldiers during the war. I agree that the article should be expanded and probably rename. --J.Mundo (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear violation of WP:SYNT. Jtrainor (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this SYNTH? That doesnt even make sense. All the sources are talking about the same things, we dont come to any conclusions that any one source didnt. If you are just going to make a blanket comment like this violates X policy, without any explanation, at least get the policy right. Nableezy (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the Haaretz article [39] appears to be independent of the previous reporting on the topic. So comments that this is all one article that has been repeated would seem to no longer be true. Hobit (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the original article, of which the other, later articles are summaries and restatements. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This is Wikinews material, although some of the stuff might be added to 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Conflict.--Sloane (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a manifestation of several widely reported phenomena, the brutalization of some types of military training, the excesses of Israel's latest incursion into Gaza, ..., yet it is a cohesive topic in itself. No WP:SYNT here. -MBHiii (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere - I see some mention of this is already in Mechinat Rabin, and the main Israel-Gaza conflict article; do we have a Criticism of the IDF article the rest can be merged to? I think the controversy is notable, but I'm not convinced it deserves a separate article - the information would be better presented as part of a larger context. We don't need to create a new article every time either side in this conflict finds another news story that supports their view. Second choice, if a merge is impossible: delete. Robofish (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. There seems to be a clear desire to keep this and expand it into an article called Bad Israel-- or better yet a WP:category so named. A handful of soldiers are wearing bad t-shirts and they will probably be banned shortly if not already, and next week this will be a dead issue, no pun intended. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with Pedrito that this article is as notable as notable as Pallywood, 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies, Adnan Hajj photographs controversy, Palestinian textbook controversy or the Saudi-Arabian textbook controversy. Not one of them is notable. They should all be deleted. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I thank User:Ravpapa for pointing out these (generally well sourced) articles on topics of which I was only vaguely aware. However controversial, every one of them should stay for the enlightenment they provide. -74.162.154.194 (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another comment: I and Pedrito did not suggest these should be deleted because they are controversial or ill-sourced, but because they are of very transient, even evanescent, notability. Here today, gone tomorrow. They may be indicative of a greater phenomenon of disinformation by both sides, which might be article-worthy. But as individual episodes, they should long ago have been wrapping fish. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guarded Keep Does meet notability criteria. Could it be part of a more general article covering similar behaviour by other military and paramilitary organisations? I don't support merger with articles on the recent Gaza conflict as the sources indicate that this phenomenon preceded that conflict.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now Seems notable enough and sourcing is fine; revisit after a bit to see what this looks like in hindsight. -- Banjeboi 14:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flash in the panYoung soldiers writing inappropriate things on T-shirts. Haaretz runs a story. It is picked up by Sky News, Yahoo News, and the Independent. Is there some standard, a rule fo thumb about what makes an incident like this notable? Because, I cannot help thinking that if this had been any army other than the Israeli Army there would not be an article.Historicist (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the IDF article on the model of what was done with the material re: the recent conflict in Gaza at Mechinat Rabin. Brief scandals at large institutions donot merit individual pages, even when they merit coverage.Historicist (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete recentism and a content fork. Some guys in the IDF wore offensive t-shirts? That's a news article, not something for an encyclopedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:01, 27 March 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 g3, vandalism/hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Born to Run (TV series)[edit]

Born to Run (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced sitcom, suspected hoax. The only reference I can found for "Diego Calcium" and "Chris Guest" is here. . . Rcawsey (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted as blatant copyright violation (content copied verbatim from http://www.macrosoftinc.com/resources_on_demand.html with no aserption of permission). Sherool (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resources on-Demand[edit]

Resources on-Demand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Total spam - listing features, benefits, enhancement etc. Listed twice for speedy but author has removed tag twice. Coralbot listed it as copy vio of http://www.macrosoftinc.com/resources_on_demand.html Author was warned on talk page. Dmol (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS, can we also protect against recreation, and maybe block user for a few days, as he/she is constantly removing tags and putting in misleading edit summaries. Not sure of the procedure for this.--Dmol (talk) 09:19, 23 March 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) 00:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DAV Institute of Engineering & Technology (DAVIET)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
DAV Institute of Engineering & Technology (DAVIET) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

doesn't seem to meet notability for Academics can't seem to find the school/ university when googled. Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 06:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The institute seems to have been around for 8 years and appears to be notable with several Engineering departments. I also tend to believe academic institutions are inherently notable. --Docku: What's up? 16:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Keep - Portions of the article are taken verbatim from other websites which is a copyvio under WP:COPYVIO. I'm tagging the article for speedy deletion. OlYellerTalktome 21:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to keep as the copyvio was removed. OlYellerTalktome 22:21, 23 March 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. MBisanz talk 01:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of America controversies[edit]

Bank of America controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be no npov and does not fall under csd10 i don't see why this article cant be merged with the original bank of America one ,Seems to be attacking the company also. Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 06:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article completely disregards WP:NPOV: "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia". Perhaps some of the content could be brought into the article on the bank itself (put into context) or an article about the banking system in general - but this article as it stands is clearly unbalanced and gives the impression that it is the result of a grudge of some kind. I42 (talk) 07:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while a "controversy" page may in some cases be encyclopedic, the use of the plural indicates it is an indiscriminate list of gripes that an anti-BoA editor has collected to push an anti-BoA point of view. There is a reason why "controversy" is on our list of words to avoid: it often, when used incorrectly, assumes a point of view against the subject. This appears to be no different. This page can never be neutral because it inherently discourages/forbids any sources that are positive about the BoA, thus creating an unworkable undue weight problem. The solution to dealing with this is deletion, as it can't be dealt with in any editorial way. Sceptre (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:SOAP? This article does not fall into soap. First it passes:

Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

This is objective. I believe the SOAP you are talking about is:

Scandal mongering or gossip. Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.

This only applies to people it says that it would be required to meet a very high standard this article has been cited by New York Times, CNN Money, and Dollar & Sense. Valoem talk 13:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Please explain how this article is not NPOV? Criticism is NPOV if it is cited. When a bank is involved in this many controversies you would be removing factual verfible information. Therefore it would not be a NPOV instead it would heavily favor a controversial bank. Keep in mind this is not a vote policy trumps.

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible.

Everything is cited and sourced. This is a well written article that also pass this excat policy. Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. Valoem talk 14:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The presentation of facts, and even the facts themselves, can be biased; otherwise, the world's news reporters would go out of business. Verifiability is not synonymous with neutrality. Sceptre (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key is in so we assert as many of them as possible - this article does not do that. It selects only facts that support a particular viewpoint, and thus there is a NPOV issue. Consider two similar examples: (1) Many life-preserving drugs have side-effects; focussing purely on the side-effects would erroneouly paint a negative picture of their value; (2) Children contribute to carbon emissions; focussing purely on children would erroneously attribute blame on them for global warming. The facts need to be put in context and balanced. This article focusses on certain aspects ("the side effects") of one particular bank ("the childen"). I42 (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to you wikipedia can not have articles on criminals or people surrounded in controversy. Neutrality is determined by wheather or not the article is written in from neutral point of view which this article is. If The New York Times criticizes someone wikipedia can cite that. Comments such as "miscellaneous matters, some totally trivial" seem to fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Valoem talk 13:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as the article is about well RS sourced controversies that involve Bank of America. As long as personal attacks against the bank ("I don't like them"), personal grievances about the bank's policies ("They took my money"), and wikipedia editor comments are out of this article, I believe it should be kept as it reflects what is being said by Reliable Sources about the bank and it's policies. Indeed to not have this article would ignore the fact that there are reliable sourced criticisms of the Bank. The BofA article is long enough without merging this article into it. That's my $0.02 . Peace, rkmlai (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A hodgepodge of miscellaneous matters, some totally trivial, like the re-possessed car that is the final paragraph; some involving primarily other companies with BofA only peripherally involved; some possibly suitable for inclusion in the main article. Although its not a natural person and doesn't fall under BLP, I think this article might be seen as falling under the G10 Speedy provision for articles whose only purpose is to denigrate their subject. DGG (talk) 17:26, 24 March 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. BJTalk 10:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antioch Baptist Bible College Institute and Seminary[edit]

Antioch Baptist Bible College Institute and Seminary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails to assert notability, advert Maniamin (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not only does the article not assert notability, but it is completely unsourced, and when I Googled this organization, I did not get any meaningful hits. Additionally, as written, the article is not coherent. --Orlady (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now this is probably notable, but I can't find a thing other than what are basically yellow-pages listings... If anyone can even show basic information about it (# of students, verification of accreditation, etc. I'd change to keep.) Hobit (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it actually offers degrees it would be unquestionably notable, though more information is needed. I think this is the college in Cartersville, Georgia is the same as the Antioch Baptist Bible College Institute & Seminary, in nearby Marietta, Georgia. There is an apparently unrelated "Antioch Bible College" in Cincinatti, Ohio, 2002-  ; and there may be others. Someone needs to sort them out, but there appears to be no central listing that I could find. DGG (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I found the same thing. I can't verify that it offers degrees or anything to show me it even really exists. Lots of "yellow-pages" like things, but that's it. Hobit (talk) 11:46, 25 March 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. BJTalk 10:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

East Sussex Dance[edit]

East Sussex Dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An advert for a nonnotable dance school - 7-bubёn >t 05:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It reads like a promotion. A small, community dance instruction school doesn't warrant an encyclopedic article. --Tocino 05:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed as per above however if re witting should be consider to keep. Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 06:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - perhaps speedily per {{db-corp}} and/or {{db-spam}}. Appears to have been written by the school's "director" so there is a clear WP:COI; phrases such as "has a vision of ...", "Formed in 2008 with the support of close friends and family" and "advanced students actively assisting in beginners classes" make it clear this is a small group with an entusiastic leader, but which does not yet meet notability standards. I42 (talk) 07:52, 23 March 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maris Grinbergs[edit]

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

nn Maniamin (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete nonnotable sportsman of amateur league. - 7-bubёn >t 05:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as above, fails WP:Athlete. No notability. Parslad (talk) 17:54, 23 March 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:SNOW MBisanz talk 08:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carpatair Flight 128[edit]

Carpatair Flight 128 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - previously proposed for deletion as "Non-notable non-injury minor damage accident"; that just about sums it up. . . Rcawsey (talk) 09:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a failure of WP:AIRCRASH; there is no evidence of lasting/widespread significance. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete people may be surprised at this, but airplanes make emergency landings all the time. Per WP:AIRCRASH, there is nothing unusual, no deaths, no substantial change in policy, and no lasting significance beyond news stories that day, so there really is no reason to keep it around. Tavix (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete news event with no historical importance. -Atmoz (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This kind of event happens to often for this one to be notable. Not to mention, they haven't retired the flight number so you couldn't use it as the title of the article. SeanMD80talk | contribs 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my original PROD on this article Non-notable non-injury minor damage accident. MilborneOne (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sufficient to mention this in the article on the airline. Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 26 March 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 Sutton-cum-Duckmanton. MBisanz talk 01:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton Spring Wood[edit]

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

Article clearly does not and will not claim notability. It's about a street with five houses on it. No more buildings than that, no historical or literary significance claimed whatsoever. It even claims that few of the residents in the closest community know it exists, which essentially describes itself as non-notable. KhalfaniKhaldun 04:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge/redirect to Sutton-cum-Duckmanton - it certainly exists as a named locality, see here and here, but there seems little prospect of enough that can be said to support its own page. TerriersFan (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as TerriersFan. A hamlet of five houses can hardly be considered notable by its existence alone. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge probably more than five houses but no shops, pubs or churches, and not a separate parish. This should probably be merged, as there doesn't appear to be enough that can be said about it for a separate article to be needed. —Snigbrook 22:54, 26 March 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. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 18:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic X-treme[edit]

Sonic X-treme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

{{{talk}}} Untick (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on an unfinished game program. It is based on pure speculation of what "might have been". The game will never be released. This article is unreferenced and relies entirely upon a single source, which is a fan-site interview with the producer of Sonic X-Treme before the plug was pulledlink. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and unreferenced speculation about what “might have been” should not be the basis of an article. Untick (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 04:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I found a Joystiq article IGN article establishing a minimal amount of notability. Just because it was never released doesn't mean it's not notable. MuZemike 04:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article seems perfectly ok to me. Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 06:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article could use some more inline citations using the notability sources MuZemike points out, but it seems notable. As mentioned in the article, this game was recently mentioned in a recent Nintendo Power with the editor commenting on a reader's comparison to Super Mario Galaxy. The mention may not be significant coverage in the magazine, but this recent reference should complement the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ost316 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the sources provided by MuZemike provide a reasonable indication of notability, especially the rather indepth IGN article. I imagine there will also be further coverage in contemporary print sources, as it slightly predates the popularisation of the Internet for this sort of stuff. That development section reads like it was brought from reasonable sources, the sources just haven't been cited. Some cleanup is required, but if cited well the article can stand on its own. If not, then it and available sources could be merged and covered as part of a larger series topic; that's an editorial matter though. Deletion isn't necessary on any front here, cancelled games aren't necessarily non-notable. -- Sabre (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unfinished games in a notable game series are quite notable, and we have sources. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 03:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A renegade, eh? What might have been is a different concept than what might be happening. It has reliable sources and various magazine mentions, I don't see why this would deleted. Elm-39 - T/C/N 17:39, 26 March 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. BJTalk 10:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crammage[edit]

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

The article fails to demonstrate that this piece of flashcard software is notable. There are no sources other than a self-published one and a mention of the underlying methodology—but not the software itself—in a master's thesis.

Let me go ahead and nip this in the bud, because there have been accusations made in edit summaries at Crammage and a few other similar articles. I've got no connections to software publishing in general, much less to this or any of its sister/competitor products. Yes, they have articles on them. However, there's the doctrine of other stuff exists, whereby this discussion is only about this article, this product and its lack of independent coverage, and not about flashcard software in general. That said, the difference between this program and, say, Anki is that the latter has been covered in multiple other sources (Lifehacker being the one I've got first-hand experience with as a reader). I've done a Google search for reviews of Crammage and found none. —C.Fred (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The recent edit histories of Anki and SuperMemo are a disaster. Based upon my long experience of what happens next, I hereby serve warning to all parties: If you do not cease edit warring right now, I or another administrator will protect the articles, most certainly on The Wrong Version. If you bring that edit warring here, I or another will prevent you from editing this AFD discussion, too. There is to be no edit warring, no attempts to stuff the non-existent ballot (This is a discussion, not a vote. I observe the existence of at least one pair of sockpuppet accounts already.), and no accusations of bad faith. Stick to our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and how it applies to the article. One further point: Just because you might be here to promote a product, that does not mean that everyone else who disagrees with you is here to promote a competing product. Most of the editors involved in this conflict are good-faith editors, who are here to write an encyclopaedia, and not to promote any products at all. Those who are here at Wikipedia for promotional reasons are cautioned to assume good faith of everyone else, in this discussion and elsewhere. Uncle G (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Uncle G: I'm curious who the sockpuppets are -- Carl H and S. Marshall? Also, I'd love to know how you figure it out -- I thought IP addresses are hidden for accounts. Or do you have some editor/moderator status that allows you to see the IP addresses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.82.5 (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for failing to assert notability. It seems that the similarity between this product and others (the aforementioned Anki and Supermemo) may be the reasoning for inclusion, but whereas those articles just about scrape in are supported by good sources this one is not. I'm unable to find anything that specifically mentions this software that isn't a Wiki-mirror or similar... although that isn't helped by the fact that the word "crammage" has various other meanings too. As far as this discussion goes or may go; Uncle G's words are extremely wise and to be ignored at your peril. onebravemonkey 16:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find the comment about "scrape in" (just above) specious. So two products JUST make it over the bar, and anything else will be JUST under? As an alternative to keeping all, how about deleting the full articles, but creating a table in the SuperMemo article comparing SuperMemo, Anki, Mnemosyne, Crammage and any other product? An attempt at this was made earlier, I see in the history, but removed by the Anki crowd as there was a separate category. Then someone at Anki removed the Category so they could put back an Anki link in SuperMemo! How about a table with columns such as "Commercial/Free," "Open source," "exe/online," "Start year"? This would be truly constructive and minimize spin by product creators, yet provide very basic product info in a neutral manner.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Greghameel (talk • contribs) 17:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete for lack of notability. Supermemo probably deserves an article as it has been around since the 1980s, the algorithm was a new idea that has been widely discussed, used and implemented. (Ideally it could be cleaned up). Anki has gained a following and enough people seem to believe that is enough for an article. I think it is a borderline case. Crammage is a new website and the sole purpose of an article would be to help it gain notability, not describe any existing importance. There are many other flashcard websites and programs, many have spaced repetition systems, including SM-2. This is not the place for articles promoting them. Carlh (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essentially promotional in nature.—The procedure here is that first the product becomes notable, and then it gets a Wikipedia article. You don't get to write a Wikipedia article in the hope of promoting the product. Incidentally, I've placed the __NOINDEX__ magic word on the article and used nowiki tags on the links. These edits should not be reverted unless the outcome of this discussion is "keep".—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this simply is useful information to wiki readers. (Note that Crammage is not for profit, and so it's not a matter of commercial spam.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeboyfrisco (talk • contribs) 15:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Homeboyfrisco (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep (Sigh. Posted this in wrong thread, moving here.) I was asked to look at this discussion as I'm a long-time crammage user. I'm not a wiki editor, don't really know the rules, nor do I want to spend time reading up on a flame war.
    • I've used crammage for over half a year. I read about SuperMemo (the algorithm) and wanted to try it out. A little research suggested that SuperMemo (the product) was a bit clunky, at least for new users. I found crammage (I think through wikipedia--I remember doing some reading here). I chose to use it as it was online and I could start using it right away. Since then, I used it almost every day (I'm obsessive), created several decks, one of which I made public for other users.
    • Now that there's apparently a controversy here, I tried out both Anki and Mnemosyne (just installed and tested a few decks -- no long-term use). I've been wanting to do that for some time. They both seem like good products too. Some nice features like stats I like, but not enough for me to switch. I read one report of mnemosyne's local database getting corrupted, that would be the only worry.
    • Again, I don't know strict wiki rules, but I can provide the perspective of a user. Searching for SuperMemo products (free ones in my case), I'm glad to get any info I can. I trust wiki editors to keep the info accurate and cut out any obvious "the perfect solution to your needs" crap; a brief look shows wiki info to be accurate for the three I tested. As a user, I don't consider product info spam as long as it has some accurate info (not hype) about the product. From my POV, I find info on all three useful.
    • --Charlene
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlenemaxfield (talk • contribs) 18:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Charlenemaxfield (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. I like the concept of notability. However, I find the definition of notability rather vague, which I think is on purpose. If someone came fresh to this discussion, without a wounded ego, I think he would see little difference between the various products that currently have coverage here. Mnemosyne is notable for being an open-source project, Anki for having a decent following, Crammage for its user base and a being a tight online flash app, SuperMemo for being first! The discussion of whether a product is mentioned in an "article" versus a "blog" seems artificial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterfenstein (talk • contribs) 00:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Peterfenstein (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Actually, none of those are measures of notability in the Wikipedia sense. As for the distinction between blogs, newspapers, and magazines, that's well-established consensus as documented in WP:Reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I almost hate to point it out, but the three accounts that have made recommendations to keep have no contributions outside this area. In the case of Peterfenstein, his first edit (as a registered user) was to this AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are no reliable sources writing about the product that I was able to find. There's just blogs and whatnot. The sole reference in the article that is about crammage is a blog that only mentions it. There's even a scarcity of unreliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless the others are deleted too: Anki, for example, clearly does not pass the guidelines at Reliable sources which say, "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" which is not the case for any of the references... all of which, in addition, are blogs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.204.27.202 (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keep them all. They are all notable. Live and let live. Peace. Build, don't destroy. Seriously, I'm not kidding. The tone here reminds me of Republicans and Democrats fighting to win, not make the world a better place. So much anger... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasjnewsome (talk • contribs) 20:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Thomasjnewsome (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 00:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of California controversies[edit]

University of California controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Poorly written POV-forking that could more easily be merged within main University of California-related articles. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that it could be included on the UC page but the defenders of the University would probably not allow it. Poorly written? Why not fix it?

Hank chapot (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Mr. Chapot, you could consider providing sources before you put up a big article like this. And the writing could do with some improvement--I just removed a slur from your text. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Call me Hank. In my defense, this list is not hard to find, just google "University of California" + controvesy. It may appear to lean toward POV but this is what is coughed up online. And besides, it is titled CONTROVERSY. I used the NY Times and the Chronicle to find these citations. Some I just know from being an informed employee at Berkeley but I will continue to seek citations. So, if you want to help me fix the article great, I would warn you we will not be able to edit the info into the UC article because there are a bunch of defenders waiting to pounce. Hank chapot (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Slur? Harsh word. Hank chapot (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since what's in here is already in main articles. The fight song business is in Big C (fight song), the oath is in University of California, Berkeley, the Drake thing is basically in Francis Drake--and I don't want to check every entry. Entries 4-6, for instance, are really way too vague (a matter of grammar also), and so even if we wanted to merge, there would be nothing here to merge. That goes for Drake also, for instance; the Cal detail is not in the main article, but it could be added easily--and this time with sources. BTW, nominator, if you thought merging was the way to go here, why didn't you just go ahead and do it? Drmies (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I can see where you got this from from the URLs to the NYT abstracts. The idea that the criticism won't be "allowed" into main articles is not very sound, since all of the ones that I've looked at are in fact included in main articles, with sources and all. That there is some conspiracy to make UC look good on WP is unlikely to be true. Besides, if it's inside knowledge, it's OR. As for your use of "Democrat," please see Democrat Party (phrase). Drmies (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seconded. I advise the creator to instead add such material to the UC article and/or those of the individual UCs. Content describing criticism/controversies is certainly welcome, just source it and be mindful of NPOV. Adding to the "History" sections might be more advisable/easier than adding specific Criticism/Controversy sections. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Random list of "controversies" without sufficient context. POV, OR issues. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I was going to suggest you look at another "list" I produced which has not only stood up to deletionists, but has gotten better with time. "List of events in the history of the San Francisco Police Department." Also, I do not think merging is the way to go here, have you ever tied to edit a UC page? It took me weeks to get the UC labor unions listed because people are defending the UC pages. Second, lists have a valid place on wikipedia. Finally, sorry about the Democrat thing, it wasn't intentional. They all did good by boycotting commencement and other speaking engagements on behalf of my union, AFSCME, so why would I slag them?Hank chapot (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let us continue this discussion.

Another point. though these issues could be merged with their respective subject pages, I would argue that there is a need to combine the controversies associated with the University of California in one place to allow for the entirety of UC issues to be assessed. Hank chapot (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this were a better edited, more carefully conceived, and sufficiently verified list, then there would be far fewer problems. (I'm sure that Democrat thing wasn't intentional, but it's an indication that this list was not ready yet to go into the mainspace.) None of these conditions are met as yet, and the list itself, combined with some of your remarks here, make it appear that WP:SOAPBOX should be invoked here, and it is something you should be careful with lest you be misunderstood and thought to be partisan. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no encyclopedic content here, no arc of development, no reading flow, no storyline, no tension and release, no drama. The title says to me that I will be reading a chronicle of intentional and related wrongs, a series of wrongs made by or against the U of C, or both. What I get upon investigation is neither; I find a stringing together of poorly selected beads that fail to make a useful necklace. Some of the bits mentioned could be utilized in articles about individuals or about specific university locations, but most would be thrown away as trivia. Creating an article like this to be the dustbin for inutile bits makes me vote 'delete'. Binksternet (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though I normall think such articles a poor idea, this one is in prctice a useful indexpage, and should perhaps be converted into a formaql list structure. UC has had a extraordinary number because of its size, location, & prominence, that in this particular case it's helpful as a guide to the many individual articles. The lines that do not refer to Wikipedia articlesshould should do so, and if not present they probably need to be written.DGG (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's fix it, maybe expand it to include all notable events in the history of UC, add an opening paragraph, improve citations, increase wikilinks make it a formal list structure, whatever. I am not the most accomplished at formatting wikipedia pages, I am a content provider and depend on others for clean up. As to my complaint that some editors are defending the UC pages from controversy, it is a fact, but more important, in a history of an institution you would probably need a section on controversies, or a list of big events, separate from the main section. I ask you to look at my "list of events in the history of the San Francisco Police Department," which was a bit sloppy at first but has been fixed by subsequent editors. That list DOES NOT belong on the SFPD page, and it is too detailed and too unwieldy be rewritten in narrative form. But it is a good piece of historical information that has survived deletionistas. Shall we rework this list into "events in the history of UC"? Then we could add all the other non-controversial but important historical stuff. Hank Chapot68.164.170.81 (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The information should be spread out into the main articles. Very few address the UC system as a whole and some are simply faculty members who just happened to be employed by a UC. Any truly notable event deserves more than a one line blurb. Mikemill (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and so we should make articles about those controversies that are notable, and give here an indication of them. DGG (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, say I write individual articles about substantial controversies that involve the university, not just a professor. how do i add it to the University pages? Should i use SEE ALSO or, RELATED LINKS? You tell me. Hank Chapot 68.164.171.40 (talk) 02:01, 27 March 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 · Review 17:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make It Happen (Selena Gomez song)[edit]

Make It Happen (Selena Gomez song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Song fails WP:MUSIC, article states the song is to appear on Selena Gomez's self titled album, but has no sources to show the album even exists. FrehleySpace Ace 02:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I agree with nominator. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC and since I could find no sources saying this song will be on her still unreleased album, it also violates WP:CRYSTAL. twirligigT tothe C 02:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Album art" is two poor-quality screencaps combined together, and Gomez has no album coming out yet. Nate • (chatter) 03:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 09:19, 23 March 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. MBisanz talk 00:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ljubisa Bojic[edit]

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

This blogger is not notable, nor is his "Serbian Web Journalism School". There are no independent news sources that refer to him or his school. All I can find is self-published work or non-notable references. There was a previous nomination in June 2008, which was appealed and left pending outside sources, see log and [41]. His bio on his own website is here, which might help the decision: http://www.ljubisabojic.com/bio.htm#04 Fences and windows (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was also deleted under a slightly different title in June 2008, before being recreated without the accents. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ljubi%C5%A1a_Boji%C4%87. Fences and windows (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he was nominated for a CNN Blog Award, so he could have some fringe notability at best. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think that indicates notability. Apparently anyone can send their blog in, and then the judges "nominate" a limited number of blogs from the proposed ones. That is a lot different from CNN actively finding and nominating blogs themselves. From the page "We invite you to discover the 12 blogs that were nominated for the final round! Among the hundred applications sent, a special committee - composed of the Management and the people in charge of the Multimedia Department at the CFJ - have selected the following candidates that remain in the race for the "Grand Prix" and the "Judges' Special Prizes"". — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is the "CFJ/CNN European award for the best student news blog" really notable, and enough to show notability? It got only a smattering of coverage in the French press last year, and there's nothing about these nominations: http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?um=1&ned=uk&hl=en&q=cfj+cnn+blog. p.s. I would be surprised if the creator of this page weren't Mr Bojic himself. Fences and windows (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:N. South Bay (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: I am a little bit concerned that there might be additional evidence of notability which we are not seeing due to language differences but what I am seeing in English is probably not enough. A few of his articles get as far as Google News, so I don't think he is just some random blogger but I don't think he quite makes it over the line to be a notable journalist, at least not yet. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if he is notable in another language, then the article belongs on that language's Wikipedia rather than en.Wikipedia. twirligigT tothe C 19:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If a subject is notable in one language then it is notable in all languages. Wikipedia is one encyclopaedia in multiple languages. I do agree that the lack of an article in any other language is not encouraging but it is not fatal. I think is is pretty clear that this article is going to get deleted but lets do it for the right reasons. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:21, 24 March 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. spam Tone 22:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Chandler Wilcox[edit]

Justin Chandler Wilcox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable newspaper columnist. Only Google hits are for his school paper and his Myspace. KJS77 01:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Speedy delete Young writer's vanity page - I couldn't find anything notable searching. FlyingToaster 01:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I'm kind of amused that the article now has a notability tag, a PROD, a speedy tag, and an AfD. I'll go delete the first three. FlyingToaster 01:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what I was about to post. Jd027 (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, same here, in the future an AFD is not needed if the article is already up for speedy deletion/deletion.--Bhockey10 (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't look at the history and see the deleted tags. KJS77 02:53, 23 March 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. MBisanz talk 00:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FUZE Meeting[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:PRODUCT. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This would normally constitute a merge, but since the parent company doesn't seem to have an article of it's own that would be impossible. However I did find some third party sources like this one from CNET, or this one from Wireless Week. There is also an article on Forbes about this product however it appears it was moved to an archive. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this article is written like an advertisement. No mention of notabiliy and lots of hype. Calltech (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 23 March 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. Tone 22:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danger (musician)[edit]

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

Was prodded in October but removed because "Danger is relatively new so they may seem non-notable for the moment but his popularity is increasing. He has songs charting on iTunes and his MySpace page has almost 1 million hits." In general, one CD, from an (independent?) label, a series of remixes and the winner of Christ's College May Ball in 2008 doesn't seem like enough for notability. If it's possible to consider a two month listing at The Hype Machine as a chart, then possible notability. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 23 March 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. MBisanz talk 00:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry MacLochlainn[edit]

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

Non-notable local councillor Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry MacLochlainn is a leading Sinn Fein Councillor in Derry and is a leading fuigure in Northern Ireland local governmnet. Prior to returning to Ireland he was the party's principle representative in England and was involved in the developing peace processm and jointly announced the Sinn Fein response to the IRA cease fire in 1994 alongside Mitchel McLaughlin.

He is a senior spokesperson on environmental matters and represents Derry City Council on the North West Region Cross Border Waste Management Group, a leading member of the major Cross Border Information Technology Committee called ERNACT. He is a leadin g member of the Derry Airport Management board of the regional Airport Advisory Boards with senior buinsess leaders from the region.

He has been chair person of most major committees of Derry City Council and represents the council on many occasions.

This and his general poilitical work where he has been referemced in a number of political theses dealing with the Irish situation suggests that he is relevant to a political database. He has a considerable google presence and seems to be searched for on regular occasions.

I think he does meet the criteria for inclusion in a comprehensive database. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PONeil (talk • contribs) 14:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Large numbers of previous AFDs mean that local councillors are not notable. Why is this person any different? Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His council work is only one aspect of his work and there is provsion for prominent councillors if there are other matters of note. His work in London was very significant over many years - He was the major face of Sinn Fein in London for the final years of the conflict. He has been referenced in several theses dealing with peace processes and is referenced in among sources the autobiography of Tony Benn. He also worked as personal assistant to Mitchel Mclaughlin and accompanied Gerry Adams on all his major visits to England during the peace process period before MacLochlainn's return to Ireland.

  • Weak Keep' If Derry is a large enough city and the council important enough, city councilors might be notable. If so there will be sources. Add them. DGG (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the second city in the north of Ireland - the fourth largest in Ireland but it is of significance because of its historical relevance in the in the history of the conflict and the peace process. MacLochlainn as one of the leading political firgures here is involved in much of the regional political activity in the North. Most recently he was involevd in the campaign to bring the transatlantic cable (Hibernia North) to Derry. Project Kelvin[42] it is called and was almost aken from Derry until MacLochlainn and others became involved in a battle to force a rethink by Government [43][http://www.derryjournal.com/journal/Emergency-motion-on-Project-Kelvin.4942326.jp (added by PONeil)


    • I'm sure DGG meant for this information to be added to the article, not to this discussion. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)--[reply]
I think it was added by PONeil in response to my comment, with the intention of showing Derry as large enough that its mayor was a significant government official. DGG (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Being a member of the Sinn Fein leadership may be more significant than being a city councilor. I am going to return back and see if the sources have been regularized, and express a keep. Cheers! User:Geo Swan 23:02, 2009 March 18
  • Delete unless independent sources can be produced that substantiate notability.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - searching ProQuest[44] turned up 63 news articles. He seems to be a notable politician in northern Ireland. twirligigT tothe C 02:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This person's work in Britain was most prominent before much material was stored on the Internet but he was well reported as being the Sinn Fein representative to Britain and was subject to much television, radio and the press including major coverage of visits made by him to meet politicians in Westminster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hill32 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up - He seems to be a nationally notable politician. However, the current article is a wall of text that I'm having difficulty reading. A collaborative effort to improve the article could be valuable. If sufficient sources fail to turn up after all, so be it, but at present it looks like a keeper. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak keep - I've done a bit of tidying, but it still needs a great deal of work. However I believe he is probably notable, more for his role within Sinn Fein than being a City Counciller in Derry. The sources provided in the article aren't yet sufficent to justify notability, more evidence needs to be provided that he is a leading member of Sinn Fein rather than just a counciller. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to a delete unless as, Broadweighbabe says, independent sources can be produced that substantiate notability. Closer examination of the sources currently provided suggest to me they do not meet WP:RELIABLE SOURCES and the article has a self-promotional flavor, it uses the word "leading" too much.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A local politician in Northern Ireland, the SF politics stuff is a red herring as he seems to have been at most an assistant to a notable politician. The sources provided as suggested above are not reliable or in some cases neutral. I have concerns here that this AFD is opening up the floodgates to establishing that local councillors are notable. I see NO evidence from neutral sources he is a nationally notable politician Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep* I think people are not fully aware of the role played by this person in England in the run up to the cease-fire. He was not an assistant to antone but the party's representative to Britian and was involved in much of the early talks with British political leaders. He accompanied the top leadership on all visits to Britain for many years.

Much of the public record about McLaughlin dates back to a time when little was on the internet but there are many reports in newspapers about McLaughlin uncluding an article in the Sun newspaper that was challenged in the Press Council after it described McLaughlin as one of the most senior IRA members arrested in Britain.

He is also referenced in Tony Benn's autobiography. I understand that a council role is insufficient but this person has a very long political record and even on council he is considered a 'heavy hitter'. I think his role may well be more evident in the future as the record is filled out with any truth process that might be initiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.63.255 (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the onus is on those who support the articles existence to provide evidence that this is the case. WP:Verification and WP:RS set out what is required. If he is mentioned by Benn, or in fact in any of the dozens of books that have been written about the peace process, then these need to be added to the article - otherwise it should be deleted for failing WP:N.
If as you suggest his role will become clearer in the future then we should wait until it does and then create the article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am collecting some of this information now but here is an example of his work in the Asian community in Britain where he was often welcomed alongside Diplomatic delegates from Asian Comunit Countries.[45] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.93.39 (talk) 16:57, 26 March 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. MBisanz talk 08:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Morris[edit]

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

Non-notable local law firm. Doesn't meet WP:CORP; article has no claim to notability, no second-source references, and no referenced claims to notability. The topic is just a press release, really; a form of advertising. Mikeblas (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 750 employees is a large/notable law firm, with a rewrite could be a good article... RP459 (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Size!=notability if there aren't proper sources to show that they've done anything notable. A press release is not a proper source. DarkAudit (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. "Articles" that read like advertisements or press releases are spam. If the firm is in fact notable, a spam article only misleads readers into thinking that the subject has in fact been covered. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam unless someone is prepared to rewrite it using reliable sources to show its notability. . . Rcawsey (talk) 09:18, 23 March 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 Withdrawn and the article in question is redirected to another article on the subject that meets WP:N standards. NAC. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Montana plane crash[edit]

2009 Montana plane crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A Prod tag was removed from this article, which brings it here. It appears to violate WP:NOTNEWS. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I disagree with your assessment, this is more than WP:NOTNEWS, we have 17 fatalities and that is a very significant number. All this article needs is a good cleanup, a infobox can be added and we can incorporate plenty of reliable sources into this article. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -I would assume that in the coming weeks more will be known and can be added here. WP has a great deal of information about notable events like this one. --Mblumber (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as redirect/merge (if there is any content worth merging): My own version at 2009 Pilatus PC-12 crash is coming along nicely and should soon be on the Main Page as an ITN where there will be plenty of caretakers over the coming days. 17 dead. Lots of kids involved. Explosion in cemetery. Try keeping the media away from this crash story. --candle•wicke 01:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have redirected the article, as per Candlewicke's suggestion (great article, Candlewick!) and withdrawn this AfD. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:38, 23 March 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. MBisanz talk 08:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kumin Sommers LLP[edit]

Kumin Sommers LLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pulled from db-spam queue; I could have speedied it, but I have a feeling the creator would have come up with newspaper articles indicative of notability if they had known that's what we needed. Tone was brochure-like, so I blanked the page (so that the "promotional" material wouldn't get copied to mirrors and archives). I've invited the guys from the LAW WikiProject to come have a look. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. NB that Matthew Kumin and Stephen Sommers are each arguably notable, though I would personally have a higher encyclopedic standard for notability under WP:NOTDIR. (Some of the Sommers hits in that google link are for the director, not the attorney.) While notability is generally WP:NOTINHERITED, I would argue that a recently-created two-person law firm consisting of two notable attorneys would be notable even if the firm itself has not generated coverage. THF (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I unblanked for discussion, in the absence of an actual BLP violation. DGG (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Google News search for this law firm turns up nothing to support notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, not necessarily with prejudice. Even if this firm is notable, the current article reads like a press release or promotional brochure and is therefore advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This discussion brings up an interesting question. Obviously if someone creates an article intended to sell something and it meets the db-spam requirements, we should tag it and bag it without a lot of second-guessing. And if we're dealing with an article that seems promotional in some way of a large corporation, then the creator is likely to be either some consumer who doesn't speak for the corporation, or some flak in marketing who probably won't be responsive. But if we're dealing with professionals ... lawyers, doctors, architects, accountants, etc ... it seems to me that they're more likely to work with us, and help us achieve our own goals, if we extend just a little more courtesy ... for instance, AfD'ing so that they can get intelligent feedback on the various problems, as here, rather than just finding out their article is gone. Am I off-base here? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not off base at all. That certainly could have been done earlier before bringing it here. However, now that is at an AFD its too late and the process must run its course.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I told the creator what was needed and gave them a day before I brought it here; and I would argue that for the typical spammer, the tagger and I are the only ones they need to talk with IMO, but intelligent professionals are likely to be skeptical and would appreciate hearing from more people than just me. But point taken; perhaps I'll stubify and discuss a little longer next time and see what I can coax out of them before AfD'ing. I'm open to suggestions. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essentially promotional in nature. WRT the comment, I can't agree that lawyers deserve special treatment on Wikipedia; I think that should be reserved for academics and publishers of academic journals.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:58, 23 March 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. Tone 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GenControl[edit]

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

Non-notable software. speedy tag removed without reason. tedder (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the creator of this article has been blocked for COI/violating the username policy. tedder (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:04, 23 March 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. MBisanz talk 08:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Kotton[edit]

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

Declined speedy as "may be notable". There sure isn't any assertion of it here. Journalist for a redlinked company would show a distinct *lack* of notability. Just being a journalist is not an assertion of notability. DarkAudit (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd probably say delete, too. I just wanted to note, though, that one of the publications he writes for, AFL Record, is not a redlink (although I don't think that makes him notable...there are crappy school newspapers that aren't redlinks, and that doesn't mean the 14-year-olds writing them should get articles). Also, the article used to have a lot more information (for example, in this version), although still no references. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. RP459 (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Inside Football is a reasonably high-profile football publication in Australia (I'm surprised it's a redlink, to be honest), but just writing for it is no guarantee of notability. There's a fair bit of coverage out there by Kotton, but there doesn't seem to be that much out there about Kotton, which is what we need for notability. Willing to be corrected on this point though. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 23 March 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. BJTalk 09:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prudence Murphy[edit]

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

Fails notability. This is a non-notable photographer who has been shortlisted for an award and has exhibited at non-notable galleries. Jenafalt (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jenafalt (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if it can be watched and defended from self-promotion and stuff (as there is at least one COI editor in the edit history). I don't know about which art galleries are notable and stuff, but I do think this reference (currently included as an EL, not inline citations) should help, as it's from Syndney Morning Herald, which AFAIK is a major newspaper. I know WP:CREATIVE doesn't list that as a criterion, but to be honest (full disclosure here) WP:CREATIVE is a guideline that I believe is too strict. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. RP459 (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, non-trivial coverage in the Sydney Morning Herald, a major Australian newspaper, as well as independent coverage from Art Monthly means that this article meets the WP:GNG, in my view. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment The 'coverage' in Art Monthly does not actually comment on her art - just uses it to illustrate a page. The Galleries that she has exhibited in are all minor galleries. She may be heading for notability, but she is not notable as the article or her career currently stands. I tried to clean up the article and find references to her notability, but when I couldn't I listed it for deletion. Jenafalt (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply, I still feel that the SMH coverage, the fact that her art was picked for the illustration, and the sundry awards that she has received all add up to notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the general notability guidelines should not be a carte blanche to include everything that objectively satisfies them. A single exhibition covered by a single newspaper article (and another source in which a single photograph was included without commentary in an art magazine) is a pretty flimsy basis for notability. IMO, fails WP:CREATIVE.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete ... for now. This is a close call and I am basing this on the fact that she did not win the award and because the coverage in Art Monthly is just shy of sufficient to demonstrate her notability per our standards. This is so absolutely close that one more magazine mention for one of her showings could get her over the top and we should re-create. This may be a rare case where a "no consensus" might be the best choice. JRP (talk) 01:09, 23 March 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 Ohio Wesleyan University. MBisanz talk 08:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Wesleyan Sweetly and Strong[edit]

Ohio Wesleyan Sweetly and Strong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sigh. Well, this really should have just played out as a prod, but here it is. Prodded several days ago by me, redirect to Ohio Wesleyan University by User:Esasus, redirect reverted by User:Ruhrfisch on the quite rational grounds that Wesleyan is an FA and this is unreferenced, largely copyvio material and should not go there. User:Esasus rejoins that the prod was removed so it has to go to afd, so here we are. 90% of the article is copyvio. The rest is unencyclopedic and largely inaccurate. This is not important enough to stand as its own article, and there is no cause to redirect the non-copyvio stuff because it is unferenced and Wesleyan is a featured article, and some of the information is outright wrong (Ohio Wesleyan does not have a "Glee Club" and while the song is sung at certain events like convocation, it does not "traditionally conclude campus performances"). Indrian (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Ohio Wesleyan University. It is clearly where this information belongs. Esasus (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But we can't do that. Yes, we should have a line about the song in the main OWU article, but this information is bad. OWU is an FA, therefore, all information needs to be sourced. This article is unsourced, and much of the factual information is wrong, so sources will not be forthcoming. There is also the copyvio issue. If this is merged into OWU, it will be immediately removed anyway for these reasons. Why then, would we merge? Indrian (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then fix the article so it is correct, remove the copyvio, merge, and redirect. If the best b=name for that is IAR, call it IAR and do it. DGG (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, except the general reason for a merge and redirect in this situation is to presrve contributor history. If the best thing to do is start from scratch in the main article, there is no reason for this one. If someone wants to "fix" the article, they are obviously welcome to, but I have no desire to do so. Indrian (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No (factual) assertion of notability. twirligigT tothe C 02:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable song. JamesBurns (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I am fine with a sentence on this song in the OWU article as long as it can be reliably sourced. I do not seethat here. Sorry to have missed this until now, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete: Add a sentence to Ohio Wesleyan University giving the name of the school's alma mater (surely a source can be found for that), and delete this article. There is no evidence that the song is notable. --Orlady (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just so you know, Merge and delete is not an actionable vote. If the content is merged, the original article must be kept as a redirect to preserve contributor history. The reason I personally favor a delete is becaue the information in this article is generally unsourced and unreliable, so it is better to start over in the main article. In that case, a redirect is not required. Indrian (talk) 22:34, 23 March 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 busking. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual busking[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable neologism. Many of the references cited do not even mention the term, unable to find other significant coverage in reliable sources. TNXMan 18:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:02, 23 March 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. No prejudice in rewriting the article if it actually becomes something encyclopedic. Tone 22:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Europeans[edit]

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

Irredeemable original research. The population statistics and blurbs on which groups from which Asian countries are found in which European countries are entirely unsourced and have nothing to do with each other. No reliable source considers Tajik construction workers in Moscow and Korean ESL students in Ireland as subgroups of a single overarching group of "Asian Europeans". The entire concept is meaningless and arbitrary --- is a Turk who moves from Ankara to western Istanbul also an "Asian European"? Even renaming this article to a non-neologistic title like "Asian migration to Europe" would produce an equally meaningless collection of topics --- for example, throwing Kalmyks into the mix along with all of the groups mentioned above. cab (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really a topic. But material could be included in many smaller topics. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an acceptable article on this topic may well be possible but I don't think there is anything here that falls within Wikipedia's basic content guidelines and policies. There is no reliable sourcing that establishes the unified concept and practically the whole piece seems to be built around a framework of original research. Guest9999 (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I should point out that, in the British vernacular, "Asian" tends to refer to people from either Bangladesh, India, or Pakistan. Sceptre (talk) 15:01, 23 March 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 Simple Machines Forum. MBisanz talk 08:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tinyportal[edit]

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

Whilst Simple Machines Forum seems to reasonably notable, there is no evidence that this add-on is notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 23 March 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. Tone 22:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes My Heart Pushes My Ribs[edit]

Sometimes My Heart Pushes My Ribs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN book from NN publisher, sourced to blogs and flickr. //roux   05:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While the author appears to be notable, it does not appear that this particular work inherits notability based upon the flimsiness of the cited sources. CopaceticThought (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Completely un-notable. South Bay (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's claim to fame is that it is the first book published by MuuMuu House, which is not a notable publisher. Tavix (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crystal ballery for an as yet unnotable book. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 23 March 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. MBisanz talk 00:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaura[edit]

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

deleted, recreated, and now i'm nominating it for deletion. again. same reasons as before. no assertion of notability, etc. Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 14:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - [46] [47] [48] further info [49] [50] [51] --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 15:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • none of those links are reliable sources. If you can find a BBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC or any other important coverage, then it may be worth a note. If not a single reliable site find the information newsworthy, nor we. Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course not, here's even more: [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 16:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Read WP:RS. do you seriously not see the difference between roadrunnerrecords.com and bbc.co.uk? Misterdiscreet (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see more than 1400 hits when searching for roadrunnerrecords.com or blabbermouth.net on Wikipedia. They seem somewhat accepted by the community. I don't expect CNN or BBC to write about rock bands other than the Stones or Floyd.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 23:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • that a website is oft cited by wikipedia does not establish notability. there are 30,000+ links on wikipedia to youtube.com [58] but being mentioned on youtube.com no more establishes notability than being mentioned on roadrunnerrecords.com. again, read WP:RS. what's the worst that can happen by reading it, anyway? you might find something you can use against me, you know. you might not, but you won't know until you read it Misterdiscreet (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • What do you want to tell me? That Youtube is per se an unreliable source? Well then, what about official channels by companies? I remember linking to a video by Gibson guitars about some specifics of a certain guitar model. Some info you couldn't get from anywhere else. What's wrong with that? (And no, don't tell something about 3rd party now). I'm not happy with the background of Roadrunner Records, but Blabbermouth is accepted for its accuracy in rock and metal related news, if you want or not. But you may of course try to get it blacklisted... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 00:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • didn't read WP:RS, did you? you know what the roadrunnerrecords.com links you provided look like? press releases. press releases do not establish notability. if you disagree how about you discuss it on WP:BAND. tell the world just how you think being mentioned on roadrunnerrecords.com ought to be sufficient to establish notability? the other links you provided look like self published sources. and the craigslist posting? if that established notability then wikipedia would have an article on every single craigslist posting ever made. but hey - since you think craigslist has such a profound ability to establish notability, why don't you create an article on 1083093634. summarize the craigslist posting and see how long that article lasts. Misterdiscreet (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Misterdiscreet's comments on requiring reliable sources, which this subject appears to need more to meet WP:MUSIC.Spring12 (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there is no coverage from reliable sources (I didn't find any in Google News either). Drmies (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If anyone has the inclination to do so, they can take a look at Kaura's press page. There are apparently some magazine interviews/profiles that could be verified offline and used to establish notability. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Misterdiscreet appears to mix up two concepts. A source doesn't have to establish notability. It has to be reliable. Not all the sources HexaChord suggested are reliable and even less reach the status of the BBC and cohorts, but just because it's not well-known doesn't mean it's unreliable. Craigslist is obviously out, but Daily Vault clearly has editorial standards. - Mgm|(talk) 12:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't !vote "keep" at the moment because I think the article is essentially promotional in nature. I'll check back later to see if it's been improved.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
so you're proposing that Daily Vault, because of their editorial standards, has the midas touch? forget about creating aticles on craigslist posting numbers - let's create an article for every URL on Daily Vault! obviously, because it's on daily vault, it's notable!! Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as at least some sources have an editorial policy and so meet WP:RS. Thus WP:N is met. Article needs lots and lots of love and stubifiing it might be the right choice at the moment. Hobit (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • you mean like Daily Vault? check out WP:SPS. it states, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, etc., are largely not acceptable." whether or not they have editorial policies is irrelevant. if i start up my own blog, it'll have editorial policies, as well. namely, that all stories are about me. that's an editorial policy and it's not sufficient to qualify my blog as a reliable source per WP:RS. Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • [59] looks okay, as does the Daily Vault. See reviewers list. It looks like a site with editors and staff writers doing reviews. You need to apply to be a writer and they currently aren't taking applications. So if you start your own blog and get 20 people to write for you and have editorial input into what they write, you are a RS aren't self-published. The work of the author is published by someone else. It ain't self-published. Hobit (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Posted question about the Daily Vault to the RS noticeboard. Hobit (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • check out the footnote to WP:SPS. Wikipedia:SPS#cite note-5. it states ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.". the Daily Vault is little more than a group blog in this context. if i start a message board and invite my friends to moderate it and am no longer accepting invitations that does not mean i am all of a sudden a reliable source nor does it mean Daily Vault is. but hey - do feel free to read WP:RS and WP:V and quote me the portions of them that you feel make your case. that's what i'm doing. i quote wikipedia policy and you respond with speculation and hearsay. that's not helping your case - it's hurting it. read WP:RS and WP:V. and read WP:NONENG for intro.de. i can't comment on a site that's in a language i don't know Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, even if Daily Vault were a WP:RS, per WP:N, the coverage needs to be "significant". a review does not constitute "significant" coverage Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • For a band or book a review is generally considered quite significant. Do you have a reference for anything otherwise? Hobit (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • the word "review" does not occur in WP:MUSIC or WP:N. well, it occurs once in WP:N but more as in "this is the material - here's a cheat sheet for it you can review"-type context Misterdiscreet (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • A brief discussion at WP:N talk would indicate that reviews are generally "significant". I'd say that brief response is less important than the fact that books, bands and movies tend to rely on reviews at AfDs and they are generally viewed as a source meeting WP:N in my experiance. Hobit (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another source [[60]] looks reasonable. Hobit (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • well it does look better than Daily Vault, however, i'm still not convinced. User:Collectonian at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Reviews? said, of reviews of bands, that they're acceptable "so long as they are not just from local sources" yet on your zeromag.com link Kaura is reviewed in a section entitled Local Music Spotlight. as such, it looks like the local sources qualification invalidates the link Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:30, 25 March 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. MBisanz talk 01:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Don McQuay[edit]

Larry Don McQuay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Non-notable criminal. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is an awful, awful person but does not meet our inclusion standards. As a criminal known for only one event (and the medical curiosity that he requested castration afterward), he failed to meet WP:BLP1E criteria for living people. Since he is a BLP article, I suggest that we assume non-notable until determined otherwise and this article does not demonstrate his notability sufficiently. JRP (talk) 01:14, 23 March 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 Confederation of European New Federations. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Carli[edit]

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

this man is a former head of CENF, a federation that has no members. I think he lacks notability Stu.W UK (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 23 March 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. MBisanz talk 00:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSANF[edit]

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

This page is for a federation of football 'national' teams. However, as yet no team has joined the federation. The page lists only 'potential' members. I would suggest that unless some teams join the federation, this article lacks notability.

I am also nominating this page

CENF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

a sister federation that also has no members. Furthermore, according to the creator of the CSANF page (who I assume would have knowledge of such things) the CENF has been disbanded. Stu.W UK (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per gsearches; plentiful hits show both have attracted adequate attention. JJL (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe question is surely not whether or not these associations have been discussed, but whether a group that has no members can be deemed notable? Stu.W UK (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well, it can if it attracts attention. Here's a good article on CENF, for example, from The Sunday Herald: [63]. JJL (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you tell me what other articles your search turned up, because I can't find any that aren't from wikipedia redirects or from the organisation themselves. The article does mention the CENF but was written when the organisation had just been set up at a time when it was reasonable to have no members. Stu.W UK (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - an group with no members? Not notable yet. GiantSnowman 10:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - members or not, seems to be notable as per references provided by JJL. Nfitz (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - with members or not they are notable, see JJL reference Calapez (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One article that mentions the organisation in passing does not constitute the multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources that would pass WP:N - fchd (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see nothing that suggests that this is anything more than a few people drawing up a list of rules and then inviting people to sign up to those rules. And thus far, no-one has done so, because the bodies they invite are inactive. Blogs and forums do not constitute RS, and I see no external references that suggest that this committee has ever done anything other than post material to a non-notable website. Kevin McE (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT. No evidence that anyone other than the founders has noticed these "federations" apart from one silly season press article. Part of the fantasy football walled garden around NF-Board. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 27 March 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. MBisanz talk 08:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chance Stallings' Christmas Special[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chance Stallings' Christmas Special (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self-produced movie with zero claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Gsearch comes up with 1 non-wiki ghit which doesn't show any notability; gnews search comes up empty. Prod contested without comment by spa who created the article. WP:COI issues as well. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, should have been a speedy. Is not now, nor ever will be, notable or verifiable. 9Nak (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, both in film & apparently in subject. Skier Dude (talk) 22:34, 26 March 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. MBisanz talk 08:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arithmo[edit]

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

No evidence whatsoever of WP:CORP notability. Speedied once as an advertisement. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. They do have one non-trivial review on their website, from Practising Accountant magazine.[64] However, I can't find anything about that magazine anywhere else but from them. The only other thing I can find is this "advertorial", which isn't very independent. Not quite enough independent coverage from reliable sources to meet Wikipedia:Notability. --GRuban (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the wikipedia entry also includes an independant review and accreditation from the Institute of Certified Bookkeepers, as this came about before the product was rebranded, I have included the link, also from the ICB that tells of it's name change. We are currently looking to the the product reviewed by AccountingWeb and will include a link to this in due course Genciamedia (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also found this announcement of the name change to Arithmo, but this still strikes me as non-notable, since I can't find any coverage in any other reliable sources, and these announcements really sound like press releases. Delete for now — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that an objective review by the Institute of Certified Bookkeepers would be considered as notable, why would it not be? Whilst I do not wish to see other entries deleted, when putting the entry together we look at a number of links from the Comparison of accounting software page as to the sort of information we should include and it's clear that this article has more evidence of notability than a number of entries on there, does it not? Am in the process of finding out if there have been any more independent reviews of the product and will add these as and when. Genciamedia (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's certified. It's reviewed at least once. It won "best download" from a non-mainstream site. None of this makes it notable. Doesn't look like any sources have been missed either; this is as good as it gets. 9Nak (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By Wikipedia's own definition, Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." For an accounting product to be certified by the Institure of Certified Bookkeepers would mean that this product is notable. As for accounting web being "non-mainstream" - this is subjective - as far as accountancy in the UK goes, it is an important website. Genciamedia (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no, a single certification is nowhere near proof of notability. You may be confusing notability within the accounting software industry with notability in the big, wide world (including Wikipedia). But a quick and easy way around that would be citing a half dozen or so reliable secondary sources that provide non-trivial coverage of this product. 9Nak (talk) 15:25, 26 March 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. MBisanz talk 08:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf the Runaway (Kacak Yusuf)[edit]

Yusuf the Runaway (Kacak Yusuf) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A Google search turned up nothing. It does not meet notability guidelines. Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 22:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should be speedy deletion. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad ([[User

talk:UnknownForEver|talk]]) 01:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep There is a significant but unsourced article on this subject in the Turkish Wikipedia and a Google search for "Kacak Yusuf" revealed many non-english non-wikipedia results. --H8erade (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--not a single hit for the phrase in Google Books, which isn't a good sign for something that's supposed to be a popular legend. Of course that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that information is not verifiable. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 23 March 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 Disambiguate. Content of Humanity will be replaced by content of Humanity (disambiguation), which will be redirected to Humanity (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 18:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humanity[edit]

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

Currently, this article merely repeats information (almost word for word) that is found in the human species and human condition. We had a similar situation the last time this article went through the AfD process over a year ago. As was discussed in the AfD, humanity has a number of distinct but significant meanings. Most of these meanings are covered by articles that already exist on Wikipedia. While numerous editors have felt there should be a unique article on "humanity", no one has come up with any unique content. The result of the first AfD was to delete the article and replace it with a disambiguation page. In March of 2008, the disambiguation was moved and a new humanity article was started. It has remained undeveloped and unsourced. I marked the new humanity article with PROD in November of 2008. When editors voiced interest in improving it, said I'd hold off on nominating this article for AfD to give them some time to do so. No significant improvements have been made. I suggest we delete the article and replace it with the current humanity disambiguation page.--Fixer1234 (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The subjects are acceptably covered by other existing articles.Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unless the article is changed its pov to a philosophy-oriented topic. (would need new sources)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect is not the best solution humanity has a number of distinct meanings. Since someone could come to the humanity article looking for anyone of them, I think the disambiguation page is the best solution. For a in depth discussion of this, please see the last AfD. Fixer1234 (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixer has a good point. If a redirect doesn't work because it has several different meanings, the obvious solution would be to make a disambiguation out of it. - Mgm|(talk) 12:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this page (again) and make it a disambiguation page (again) per previous AfD, Fixer, and Mgm. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:19, 23 March 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 · Review 18:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Business Student Association[edit]

Asian Business Student Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N. Nothing sets apart this student organisation from countless others. Biruitorul Talk 18:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ditto. We need at least an assertion of notability. 9Nak (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another student club that has no notability in the wider world (and it appears very little even in its own halls). Nuttah (talk) 16:23, 26 March 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. MBisanz talk 00:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jameson Raid (band)[edit]

Jameson Raid (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article subject fails WP:MUSIC notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think there are two critera in WP:MUSIC "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" that this band does meet.

Item no.1 "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable" - the band has been included in two books by notable rock journalist (Martin Poppof and Malc MacMillan) and features in "The International Encyclopedia of Hard Rock And Heavy Metal" by Jasper and Oliver. In MacMillan they get a full biography and history over two pages so it goes beyond "merely trivial coverage".

Item no.6 "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". Guitarist Steve Makin was the first guitarist selected to join Slade after the departure of Noddy Holder, where he stayed for 4 years. The article has now been edited to highlight this. SAHBfan (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which two books by Poppof and MacMillan? JamesBurns (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The books are referenced in the article. Here they are:

The International Encyclopedia of Hard Rock And Heavy Metal’ by Tony Jasper and Derek Oliver, Sidgwick & Jackson,, 1983

The New Wave Of British Heavy Metal Encyclopedia’ by Malc Macmillan, Iron Pages, 2001

The New Wave Of British Heavy Metal Singles’ by Martin Popoff, Scrap Metal Records, 2005

Suzie Smiled: The New Wave Of British Heavy Metal' by John Tucker, 2006

SAHBfan (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment SAHBfan, can you provide page numbers and the like for the references as well as a couple of brief quotes about the band? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, I can do this. Do you mean in the article or here in this discussion? I have a scan of the whole entry from the MacMillan book but obviously can't publish it to the net without breaching his copyright.

In the 2001 edition Jameson Raid starts on page 225, covers the whole of page 226 and a bit of 227. Just checked Amazon and this book is being reprinted, though. You can pre-order the 2009 version, but it isn't out yet so no idea what the page numbers will be in that.

  • Comment One of the problems of providing ‘reliable references’ for NWOBHM bands is that they predate the WWW.

Jameson Raid satisfies the WP:Music Item 2 criteria because both their EPs were in the top 30 in 'published national charts' (namely Sounds magazine Heavy Metal Chart 1980 and the Alternative Charts 1979) and MFM II was number 30 in the national album charts in 1980. Whilst these are verifiable facts; the charts for 79/80 are not available on the net (as far as I know) and so it is not possible to provide an easy reference. This is something that seems a little ironic to me. I have provided references to the preferred ‘reliable, third party, published sources’ as defined by Wikipedia. Namely: Published Books by reliable, notable Authors. The guidelines specifically excludes most web material. However from reading several of the disputed cases on various deletion threads it appears that many members wish to Google to information on the www to check notability, but for a band from the late 70s / early 80s this information is obviously very limited. I suspect no one in this discussion has, or is in a position to, check the books I have referenced. In theory I could provide scans of the relevant pages if required, but obviously would be in breach of copyright if I attempted to publish them. Frustratingly I even have photocopies of the alternative charts for 1979 / 1980, but what use are they? I could post a picture of myself pointing to the Jameson Raid entry, but I suspect that may not quite be in the spirit of wikipedias 'reliable published sources'! I am open to suggestions.

Please re-read the article. Since the notice of deletion I have added additional inline citations and extended the list of external links to include Rockdetector, spirit-of-metal and other third party sites. SAHBfan (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Given the above sourcing. Hobit (talk) 12:38, 26 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_23&oldid=1142644138"