Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 9

< 8 August	10 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. I have ignored the !votes from apparent SPA's. Courcelles 02:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Heath[edit]

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

Delete - Non Notable person, the article was speedy deleted once before however for reasons unknown was declined this time. ZooPro 23:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable model. Carrite (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only independent source I can locate is the write-up in his hometown newspaper. Not enough here to satisfy WP:BIO. Deor (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable model/actor. I found a source w/ a resume at http://www.sag.org/iactor/CoryHeath Abc121212 (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC) — Abc121212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak Keep - the write-up in his hometown paper, plus the other sources, make him barely notable. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I say keep it. Seems legit and notable to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.167.26 (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that IP 76.247.167.26 is infact user Abc121212, furthermore indicating that the article is not notable if its creater has to "puff" up the AfD with "keeps". ZooPro 11:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- after reviewing the sources as compared to other notable people in this similar area, I have reason to believe this subject is notable.Raymond44 (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Raymond44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. He fails WP:ENTERTAINER and RS coverage is insufficient for WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a single "local boy does good" profile piece in the local paper does not establish notability. When considering notability, the nature and type of coverage needs to be considered. -- Whpq (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G5, creation of banned user) by JamesBWatson. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Car bulging[edit]

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

Something that was made up one day, even on a TV show, doesn't deserve its own Wikipedia entry. If anything, this title should redirect to the show in question, but even then I don't think this is really a valid search term. (Unlike master of your domain, which is hugely popular due to the awards and such won on that episode.) — Timneu22 · talk 23:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also created by a confirmed sockpuppet. --Bsa dow ski1 01:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously unnotable neologism. Thparkth (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Neologism. Speedy OK, eh? Carrite (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5, and tagged as such. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saquib Malik[edit]

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

Biography of a living person for which I can't find any independent coverage. Article claims that the subject won the "I-T Pride Award in 2009", but that does not appear to be supported by any sources. Pink Bull 23:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probable spam and autobiography as the article claims he was trying to get sufficient recognition to as a personality to support a subscription model for his blog, and continues to try to get micropayments from it. Additionally, there is no coverage about him to establish notability. There is a video director of the same name who gets coverage, but I doubt these are teh same individual. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ensim[edit]

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

The article appears to fail WP:ORG. Apart from press releases from the company and associated derivative articles, I find nothing in Google News to show that the lack of any significant impact in independent sources or on the historical record is likely to be addressed in the near future. That a company exists, has a partnership with Microsoft and a range of products does not make it notable for an encyclopaedic article. Fæ (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is overly promotional, and a google search returned nothing that could realistically be used to establish notability. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 22:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no references that show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising for yet another back-office IT business: the product provides, via an extensible Service-Oriented Architecture, access control, identity management, change management, automated provisioning, reporting and auditing, password and role management, along with delegated administration and device/client configuration. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - obvious promotion of non-notable firm; could have been speedied as an advert. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Plumb[edit]

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

This BLP has remained virtually orphaned and unreferenced for four and a half years. I can see no solid evidence of notability and can find no strong secondary sources. Scott Mac 21:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because unsourced. WP is not a free CV-hosting service. --FormerIP (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced blowing of the proverbial triumphant trumpet. Yuck. Carrite (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Her activities as a businesswoman /entrepreneur has attracted notice. See [1] and [2] for a couple of examples aside from the Management Today listing already in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These additional cites do not establish notability. Are we to give an article to eveybody in business who has been mentioned in the press twice? That wouldn't even establish notability for an organisation, let alone an individual. --FormerIP (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given my above statement, it's thrice as there was source in the article. But these are just two examples. There are other examples. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and yes she does get the occasional mention in the press but it is far from significant coverage. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flight (fiction)[edit]

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

Article is not distinct from Flight except that it covers fictional instances of flight, which do not merit a distinct article. Also already covered is supernatural/magical flight at Transvection (flying) Feeeshboy (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Transvection (flying) Article does seem to be distinct from flight, none of the mechanisms of real flight match those of fictional flight, fictional flight in the sense of the article is usually handwavium.- Wolfkeeper 21:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't merge The article on transvection also has problems, but it is not about the same thing as this one. All this one is saying is that some fictional, and/or mythological, figures have the power of flight. That's all, there is no discussion beyond that. Borock (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and as there is no referenced material, there is nothing to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nicolae Carpathia. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carpathianism[edit]

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

Consists entirely of in-universe plot material, and fails the general notability guideline. No evidence that this has been covered by any reliable, third-party sources. *** Crotalus *** 20:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Nicolae Carpathia character's article. While Carpathianism may be an important part of the books' universe, it does not meet WP:GNG on its own merit. I'll go ahead and add a better-written Carpathianism section to the character's article. --Sarasco (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sarasco. Why are we even here? Was a merge or redirect even attempted (per WP:ATD before this AfD was opened? Jclemens (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge due to absence of third-party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball keep. Non-admin closure. Chris (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SEIFA[edit]

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Athlem (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparent a major government statistical publication. Does need better refs. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a fundamental government statistical publication. Don't be dopey. Rebecca (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced to national government websites, well-written, interesting, and notable. A search of Google books finds "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" numbering in the hundreds. First Light (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As creator, I agree that it needs better refs, but it's the primary measure of advantage/disadvantage produced by the official national statistical agency for Australia and can be used to like-for-like compare different areas in Australia. Its main use would be by NGOs, academics and government agencies (especially those dealing with low socioeconomic areas, such as housing, health, etc.) One example of its broader use is [8] (actually an article critical on overdependence on it in policy making), and this academic paper in an independent national journal which used it to examine mortality in Sydney by area over time. Orderinchaos 03:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Press Play on Tape. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Run/Stop Restore[edit]

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

Band is currently nominated for deletion as non-notable, as can be seen here. Therefore, also nominating their album as part of the process (if the band ends up deleted, it can be assumed that an album by them is also not notable). Album lacks significant coverage, and I don't believe it charted. Esteffect (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Press Play on Tape. If Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Press Play on Tape is closed as delete, then this article can be speedied under criterion A9. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Press Play on Tape. The albums notability in itself does not warrant its own article. MarcLager (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Band is itself of borderline notability so this certainly isn't notable. Fails WP:NALBUM with no or few reviews, awards etc. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Henley[edit]

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

One minor role in one film. Nil else of note. Clavecin (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the only reliable source I could find. Google News returns a lot of stuff about other people with the same name. Fails WP:ENT. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One puff piece in a newspaper does not notability make. Chris (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note that WP:ATHLETE has been superceded by WP:NSPORT which the subject now passes. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Worner[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH as he has not played at a fully-professional level, despite having recently signed for Charlton he has not played for them yet. Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage that's beyond the WP:NTEMP stuff. Contested PROD. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 19:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as original PRODer, he has yet to make an appearance in a fully-professional competition, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. No significant media coverage to pass WP:GNG either. --Jimbo^[online] 08:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now satisfies WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 10:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Worner is playing tonight, so assuming Carling Cup games count as fully-professional then this article now passes the criteria. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he has appeared in the Carling Cup, he has now passed the criteria. MichaelJackson231 (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now passes WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 10:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:ATHLETE thanks to his League Cup appearance. The League Cup qualifies as fully professional as all the teams in it are, unlike in other cup competitions which don't count, and his appearance can be easily verified. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Mauro[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be significant secondary source coverage. Gigs (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google news only returns false positives. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reference is a dead-link too. Chris (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Butcher[edit]

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

Not notable - has never played a professional game. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has actually played for Grays Athletic while on loan from Tottenham but I could not upload the infobox correctly. lmcintyre1 —Preceding undated comment added 09:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Grays, however, have never played at a fully professional level of football -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who moved it from AfC to mainspace. I considered the subject equal to other players on the team, all of whom have articles, and accepted the article on that basis. However, I just read WP:ATHLETE and see he must have played. I am new to AfC, and football is not my gig. Apologies, and concur with deletion. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I usually do is save the content of non-notable Orient player articles, and if the player ever plays a league game, I use the old article to form the basis of a new one. So this article may yet reappear if Butcher becomes notable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good plan. Let's hope the lad makes something of himself. I will learn from this one. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 20:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played a game in a fully professional league, so fails Wp:ATHLETE and Wp:GNG. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played in a fully-professional match yet. Also no significant media coverage to pass WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 08:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lift at Juniper Street[edit]

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

Contested prod and speedy G11. Spammy article about a parking garage under construction in Philadelphia. Some of the promotional material has been removed, however most of the remaining material belongs in Multi-storey car park#Automated parking without mention of this particular structure. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While this is indeed spammy-- I almost want to drive to Philadelphia just so I can park my car there-- and while I don't think that this particular parking garage is notable (though it may be if it's introducing a European innovation to North America)-- it appears that we do not have an article about automated parking. I can see all sorts of possibilities of converting this article over to something encyclopedic by shifting the focus from the company to the type of product. Mandsford 18:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or persuade me that this run-of-the-mill garage is something special. I see another one of these "lifts" being built across the square... it's just a grey box. East of Borschov 19:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Some info needs to be in a yet-to-be-created article on automated parking. Most of this is advertising that needs to go away. Carrite (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In fact I think even in its present, somewhat despammed, version it is close to speedy deletion. (The original version was totally blatant spam. It was created by an editor all of whose editing has been spam for the business which built this.) No independent sources for this business are given. (Some of the sources do not mention The Lift at Juniper Street, and others are not independent.) The idea of merging into an article which doesn't exist makes little sense. Anyone who thinks we should have such an article is free to create one, and then merge material from this article, but as long as there isn't one we can't merge this into it. If such an article is created then we can reconsider the question. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A1 UtherSRG (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calculating 82041[edit]

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

Completion of incomplete nomination. Should have been tagged {{db-nocontext}}, however I am bringing it here on behalf of another editor. Speedy delete A1. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notable page. Keep it!--205.215.88.178 (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. Falcon8765 (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not nonsense. it is a calculation of wavelengths in pulsars--205.215.88.178 (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A1. Unless this is a documented easter-egg or something, it's not even worth mentioning in the main Python article. Ezhuks (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it is about a nuance involving pulsars!--205.215.88.178 (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator has withdrawn so there are no arguments for deletion aside from one outstanding delete !vote. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EHealth[edit]

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

Neologism with no well-defined definition. (otoh, see http://www.jmir.org/2005/1/e1/ for a detailed review of usage of the term.) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination -- Bondegezou's recent reorg of the article makes it more useful. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very fuzzy article. It desperately needs cleanup, but from what I can gather, it's still a very fuzzy collection of definitions. Definitely goes against WP:NAD. I suppose it could be transwikied to Wiktionary, but even then, the sources and definitions are so unclear that I don't even think that's a terrific idea. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 18:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Over a year ago, I tried to find a merge, but there was no luck. This is a neologism with no clear definition. I hate to kill it, but I don't see this turning into an article with a defined subject. The term is so nebulous that I can't even suggest a redirect. Anything here probably will be obsolete by the time any article of meaning can be written under this title.Novangelis (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change recommendation to Merge to health informatics. This is an ambiguously defined neologism that in its various meanings either means health informatics or a subset of health informatics. While there may be nuances, I find it is sufficiently synonymous. At present, the article is a collection of definitions (dictionary entry). Unless the term actually reaches a widely accepted definition that is distinct from health informatics, the article will only have the potential to be a content fork. Per the principle of least astonishment, eHealth redirecting to health informatics is less unusual than a collection of definitions.

I am impressed by the improvements that were triggered by the deletion discussion, but I still do not see that there is a discrete topic that is unique from existing content. A term with variable meanings that are either the whole of or some subset of a better established topic should be discussed in the context of the established subject.Novangelis (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both this article and health informatics are in a poor state and I wholeheartedly support Novangelis' attempts to improve them. I just don't feel a merger is the right approach. Bondegezou (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I'm a lecturer in health informatics. I teach on a module called "e-health";[9] I've had a UK government research project worth £300k on "e-health";[10] I read journals with the term "e-health" in their title.[11] "E-health" gets over 18,000 hits on Google Scholar, some going back over a decade. Yes, there are problems with the term (which should be discussed in the article), but the idea that this is a neologism requiring deletion or is unworthy of a Wikipedia article is preposterous. Bondegezou (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is more of a comment to Bondegezou, but I'd just like to remind you that it's generally preferable to, when discussing an AfD, disclose if you have a vested interest in the article, as your 26 edits to the page would suggest. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD. Thanks! — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies to GorillaWarfare. As I'm not the primary author of this article, I didn't think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD applied. My general interest in the topic was, I thought, apparent from the fact I teach a module called "e-health", I've had research grants on "e-health" etc. etc. Bondegezou (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, no worries! I hope it didn't seem combative -- it wasn't intended to sound that way. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 15:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Bondegezou points out, it's an extremely widely used term which has been in common use for at least a decade. There are 488 Medline hits for ehealth and 760 for e-health, including reviews focusing on the topic going back to 2001 (eg [12], [13], [14]). Terms which appear in the titles of academic journals (per above) and international societies ([15]) are in no way neologisms. There are also around 60 incoming wikilinks. There is an element of a fuzzy definition at the moment, but I see no reason why the article can't be used to explain the different areas that the term encompasses and point to more detailed articles on obvious sub-areas, such as telemedicine. In my experience this is a rather poorly covered area in the encyclopedia. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm afraid eHealth clearly is a neologism. The academic sources, to which you refer, call it such. Any article that begins, "X is a relatively recent term..." is about a neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The purpose of an article is to discuss a specific topic, not to assemble lists of the ways a term has been applied. We need to wait for a generally accepted definition before there can be a topic upon which to write an article.Novangelis (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, "e-health" is a neologism in the sense that it's a term that no-one used in the 1980s. However, the term has over 11 years of documented use now. The point of WP:NEO, Wikipedia's policy on neologisms (a sub-section of Wikipedia is not a dictionary), is not to ban articles on any term that was once a neologism, but to be careful about very new terms. WP:NEO states, "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept". In other words, it's basically WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The article cites multiple reliable secondary sources about the term: I've just added some more and yet more are available. We do not "need to wait for a generally accepted definition before there can be a topic upon which to write an article". I can't see any policy that says that. What we need is "significant coverage in reliable sources", which we've got. And there is a generally accepted range of definitions for this term; there's just an ongoing debate over how specific the term should be. Bondegezou (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a fundamental definition: an article has to be about something. The term "podcast" is newer, but it is has a clear subject for an article. As it had been written, this article was about eight things, six of which had articles. That is how content forks develop. If there were a predominant definition that did not duplicate another term for which there was an article, at least there would be a topic for an article. JMIR calls itself "the leading eHealth journal", so it may not meet the criterion "independent of the subject". As of the latest version I have seen, I find the following problems:

too much use of a single journal (five of six references) which has linked itself to the neologism;
too much reliance on a single source (Oh, 2005);
too much copied directly from that source (this gets into plagiarism issues);
reliance upon the source for the citation of copied definitions (copyright/fair use issues);
no sources more recent than 2006 (how do you show that the term hasn't become archaic without ever having become defined?).

Copyright requires prompt action. The Oh article is covered under Creative Commons, so nothing is required other than keeping a proper citation. The quoted definitions may be under copyright. Satisfying these problems may not be enough to establish that there is a clear topic and not a vague neologism. At present, my recommendation to delete remains, but I will continue to evaluate. I want you to succeed, but I don't think the odds are in your favor.Novangelis (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are absolutely, definitely problems with this article. It needs work. If you see any copyright infringement issues, please do correct them a.s.a.p.; I can't see any myself. However, such issues do not pertain to the notability of the article topic and are tangential to an AfD. It seems to me that a Wikipedia article on a topic citing a leading academic journal on that topic is precisely what Wikipedia should do rather than a failure of independence, as you suggest. If you look at WP:GNG, it defines "Independent of the subject" as "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." The purpose of the phrase is to stop people or organisations promoting themselves. I don't see its role as being to exclude a reputable academic journal in a topic area. You might want to take that discussion to WP:Notability/Noticeboard given it's more general nature. Note, I have a possible conflict of interest in that I am an unpaid section editor for JMIR. As I indicated above, this is the field I work in.

As for the initial point of your last comment, e-health is about something. It's a broad term that includes a number of more specific topics. I remain befuddled as to why something with over 18,000 hits in Google Scholar remains up for debate. Bondegezou (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is debating that the term eHealth has been used. You define it as a broad term that includes several other topics, but there are other definitions out there. The difference between a term and a subject for an article is simple: if there is a synonym (not necessarily exact) for a term, and an article exists, you do not create a second article. The broad definition is virtually indistinguishable from health informatics, at which point this becomes a content fork. Your present discussion of the term is making me think of changing my recommendation to redirect (which should have been my initial recommendation), or possibly even merge (the collection of definitions illuminates the terminology problem), to health informatics. I recently tried helping an editor who wanted to use Wikipedia to standardize some informatics terminology. As I had to explain to him, Wikipedia reflects standards, but does not set them. I see this same problem repeating itself. I am not impugning JMIR as a reliable source, in general, but basing an article on one journal's attempts to define its own subject is not reflective of broad usage, especially when other definitions exist.

As for the copyright issue, some of the individual definitions in the article you copied from may be under copyright. I see no problem with using the definitions under fair use, but they must be attributed. I'm no expert on copyright rules. It may be that one reference to the article that compiled them is all that is needed. On the other hand, it may be that we have to attribute each definition to the source. This is not a crisis, but should not be ignored.Novangelis (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your points in reverse order... I did not add the material about which you have copyright concerns. As I said above, I'm not the primary author of this article. Until yesterday, I was mostly just keeping spam out of it. Such concerns should not be ignored, I agree, but the matter is separate from this AfD. Perhaps you should take it to the article's Talk page?

The key JMIR citation is the article by Oh et al. This is a systematic review of the term's usage. The whole point of a systematic review is that it is not just one author's or one journal's attempts to define a subject, but that it is a study spanning the entire academic literature.

If "e-health" was only ever used in its broadest sense, then it would make sense to merge it with health informatics and have some sub-section discussing terminology -- I would agree with you there. However, the term's usage is often more specific: there are examples given in the article, and there is discussion of the fluidity of the term given in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I initially did not propose redirection because some of the definitions are not synonyms. That was an error. No one would ever be shocked typing in "eHealth" and winding up on the health informatics page. Since eHealth can mean health informatics or some subset, a redirection would not be out of line. The content fork remains an issue. A collection of definitions is not the basis for a stand-alone article. The definitions might be merged into a section in health informatics called "eHealth" and read something like: "The term eHealth is used in several contexts. While it can be synonymous with health informatics,...". eHealth would redirect either to health informatics or directly to that section.Novangelis (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Bond. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Comments by Bondegezou has explained concerns and nominator withdrawn. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Definition of "epic film" is subjective, and thus articles are inherently original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of epic films:1930s[edit]

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

wp:IINFO, WP:NOTDIR, WP:LSC, WP:SALAT. Wikipedia isnt a repository of loosely associated topics nor a directory. If this looks familiar, see WP:Articles for deletion/List of British pop musicians of the 1940s. This series of lists does nothing but restate the category. Furthermore, if a list is really needed, put them all in one list, not a list for each decade. See also

LAA Fan 17:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOTDIR. A category could easily do the same thing as these lists. --Slon02 (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Although I disagree with the nomination rationale, since the articles in question are neither directories not loosely associated topics. The problem is that the term "epic film" does not have a strong enough generally-agreed upon definition to be able to adequately judge which films should necessarily be in or out, and while there are obvious "ins", such as Gone With the Wind or Seven Samurai and obvious "outs", such as Gertrud, there is a huge and I believe unresolvable middle. Rlendog (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I started these lists, and to be honest, I lost interest in them. I really don't care anymore and actually agree with Rlendog.TheLastAmigo (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The arguement that a category already holds this info is redudant, per WP:CLN. Lists and categories go hand-in-hand. These lists have much more info than a category could have (cast, director, country, etc), and can easily be expanded. Good work to TheLastAmigo for starting them in the first place - don't be put off! Lugnuts (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Per Lugnuts. These lists just need to have citations added and will help any users understand of what Epic films are with expanded information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rlendog. I agree completely. Tavix | Talk 02:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to say that an excellent point that Rlendog made. There is indeed a lot of gray area here. Unless a substantial intro is added, I don't see how it helps people understand what epic films are.--LAA Fan 05:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I couldn't click on the link to epic film in the intro, it doesn't matter. It doesn't need to be re-defined when the main article already tells the reader what an epic film is. Lugnuts (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition per the lede of epic film is "An epic is a genre of film that emphasizes human drama on a grand scale. Epics are more ambitious in scope than other film genres, and their ambitious nature helps to differentiate them from similar genres such as the period piece or adventure film." That does not define what is in and what is out. Terms like "Grand scale" and "more ambitious" are hardly objective criteria on which to base inclusion or exclusion from the list. Not to mention that neither the lede nor the "Characteristics" section of the epic film article are sourced, so there is no evidence that even this fuzzy definition is at all a universally accepted definition. Rlendog (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it is confined to the notable ones which have, or should have, Wikipedia articles, it is not indiscriminate, as it is one particular genre, it is not loosely associated. As it gives more information than the bare title, it does nnot duplicate the category. With a list like this, I can not only easily find the article I might have in mind, but I can also see the relationships between them--no category can ever do that. And that one particular person doesn't want to work on it, is no reason to delete an article. Given the quite stable nature of the subject, it does not even matter if it is not actively maintained. If the links change, the bots can fix them. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All per DGG and Lugnuts--Mike Cline (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, indiscriminate lists and there is absolutely no way to decide what an "epic" film is. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Defining an epic film is subjective and requires too much original research. Epbr123 (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 17:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the keep comments above address Rlendog's comment which I believe is very valid - having the definition of an epic film is one thing, but actually naming them is a quagmire; generally either its POV or OR even WITH references. Ryan Norton 20:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main article has a defintion. This is being sidetracked by the tags at the top of the page, that date from mid-2008, that could be about anything in the article. As it's been edited since then, there's the possibility that the tags are redundant. The lists themselves don't explicity need to be referenced, as they should link to articles that back up the claim. It's a simple case of removing entries on the list that aren't in the epic film genre. Arguements to have this as a category fall into the same issue as having the list - IE how is it any less subjective to slap the Category:Epic films to the foot of the page than to add it to the list in the first place. In other words, either both the lists and categories can co-exist (per WP:CLN), or they both need deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even lists are supposed to be referenced technically; most just aren't because they aren't seeking any sort of status like a WP:FL. The problem is that "epic film" has simply too many different interpretations. Due to procedure generally we can't delete categories at AFD but I suspect the days on that cat are numbered as well. Ryan Norton 15:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a list without clear criteria is unencyclopedic. T3h 1337 b0y 20:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i dont think we have effectively defined "epic" with reliable sources. the main article is tagged as containing original research. the term is likely used by marketers and reviewers as desired. I found one book mentioned in google scholar, by Derek Elley, senior film critic at Variety, called "the epic film:myth and history", which according to a summary at amazon, "Discusses American and Italian movies based on stories from the Bible and history and mythology of ancient Greece, Rome, and medieval Europe." Thats not our working definition. so where is it stated what an epic film IS? we all know what they are when we see them, but even pornography has a better definition than this does. I would support maintaining these lists if we could be more precise. a lot of the films here are categorized as epic films, but the articles themselves dont explicitly state that they are epics. I see a whole lot of amateur film scholars at WP trying to classify films more precisely than the rest of the world does. you cant have precision if you dont have accuracy. example: a long jump measured to millimeters when you havent defined what counts as the point to measure from is meaningless. I am sympathetic to the lists, as they would seem to have obvious value. maybe they can be rescued with clear inclusion criteria. maybe its a lost cause to even try to advocate for clear inclusion criteria anymore.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rlendog's full argument. Just can't see a stable definition for "epic film" - fine for an article about the subject but not for lists of it. Ryan Norton 15:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all It is just a matter of finding a reference calling the film an epic, rather than trying to define what an epic is. I have already added a few references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alll an appropriate subject for a series of lists, and division by decade is a perfectly logical break point. Alansohn (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Doubling with a category is not a valid argument for deletion, as lists provide a very different way of navigating the wiki. The article on epic films shows that this is considered a seperate genre of films and thus a list naming the notable films in that genre seems not unreasonable. Similar things exist for other genres as well (e.g. List of science fiction films), without anyone contesting the validity of such a list. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX--LAAFan 13:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:VAGUEWAVE --Reinoutr (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You just violated your own rule.--LAA Fan 03:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all There's no stable definition of epic, and the whole lot strikes me as a major amount of original research. Courcelles 02:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 02:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Crucible of Iron Age Shetland[edit]

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

Here is the original deletion rationale - I am collapsing it in favour of restatement below (but it's still relevant and should be read before the restatement) MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term "The Crucible of Iron Age Shetland" is not a notable place or name. It is an umbrella term that was apparently recently invented to list the three Scottish places of Mousa, Old Scatness and Jarlshof together as an application for inclusion on the new Tentative List of World Heritage sites in the UK. It is not certain yet which of those applications gets to go onto the Tentative List, and being on the Tentative List is no guarantee of ever becoming a World Heritage site - it is merely a pre-requesite for consideration. See List of World Heritage Sites of the United Kingdom#Tentative list for a fuller explanation.

As such, any idea that "The Crucible of Iron Age Shetland" is actually a Heritage Site yet is very much speculation, and we already have decent articles on all three sites already. And the term as a name is only mentioned in sources as part of the press coverage of the original announcment of the applications. The current content of this article is simply some content from all three separate pages bunched together under this title.

As such, this article is an exercise in pointless duplication/forking and improper speculation. At best, it can be turned into a usefull redirect to the applicatoins list, or a sort of dab page listing the three sites, but either way, there's no point keeping the current content in the article history, and thus it should be deleted first before that occurs. MickMacNee (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restatement. OK, I'm amazed at some of the things said in the 'keeps' below in the name of policy or common sense apparently, so I'm going to take the unusual step of restating the deletion rationale again, this time with explanations of the relevant actual guideline wordings, and with respect to the actual contents of this article, so that there can be no mistake as to what people are voting on. I'll be working off of this version. MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The restatement is collapsed in here because it's necessarily quite long MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTABILITY[edit]

The first relevant guideline is WP:NOTABILITY. It states:

A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion if it ... has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources...."Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail...Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability...."Sources" for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.

So, to assess if the sources support the claim that the 'crucible of iron age scotland' is notable, I shall review the article's references. I list below the sources in the order they are listed in the article, detailing how they relate to the topic:

[16] Doesn't say anthing about the crucible except state "Shetland's Iron Age settlements" is one of the 6 Scottish bids
[17] - the government announcement of the 38 applications - as a primary source it is irrelevant to notability
[18] - a different government press release about the government announcement of the 38 applications - as a primary source it is irrelevant to notability
[19] Doesn't say anthing about the crucible except list "Mousa, Old Scatness and Jarlshof: The crucible of Iron Age Shetland." as one of the 6 Scottish bids.
[20] Doesn't say anthing about the crucible except mention "Mousa, Old Scatness and Jarlshof on Shetland" is one of the 6 Scottish bids.
[21] Despite a headline that suggest this may be an in-depth piece, all it manages to say about the crucible is "A bid has been made for UNESCO World Heritage status for Mousa, Old Scatness and Jarlshof under the banner of “The Crucible of Iron Age Shetland”,"
[22] Doesn't say anthing about the crucible except list "Mousa, Old Scatness and Jarlshof: The Crucible of Iron Age, Shetland" as one of the 38 national bids
[23] All this piece mentions of the crucible is to mention "the Iron Age ruins of Mousa, Old Scatness and Jarlshof in Shetland" is one of 6 Scottish bids, and to include the commentary: "Val Turner, regional archaeologist at the Shetland Amenity Trust, who helped prepare the island's bid, said: "Our sites are truly amazing. If we get World Heritage site status it will increase the numbers of visitors and help the island community value what it has. "We are often seen as a peripheral and neglected area on the edge of the mainland, but we are in the heart of Iron Age and Viking history.""
Doesn't mention the crucible, and as such is irrelevent to its notability
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above

So, in summary, only 6 of the 17 references in this article even qualify for consideration as evidence of notability of the topic of 'crucible of iron age scotland'. Of those 6, four simply name or list 'crucible of iron age scotland' as one of the 6 Scottish or 38 national bids, some not even including the term 'crucible' even. Of the 2 remaining (No. 6 and 8.), one gives just a sentence on the crucible bid, and the other manages to include a quote from one person involved in the crucible bid. That's it, that's the entire body of proof so far that 'crucible of iron age scotland' is a notable topic deserving of an article. This is patently nowhere near meeting the relevant wording in WP:N as described above.

On inheritance and prediction[edit]

On a related matter to notability, it has been suggested that simply being a possible WHS site means that there should be an article on it. However, from the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Notability cannot be claimed for something because it is associated with something which is notable - therefore, you cannot claim that just because the 'crucible of iron age scotland' might someday become a WHS, it is not currently notable because of this fact. And it is simply incorrect to say that the crucible is even one step away from becoming a WHS, it is at most two steps, possibly more. First it has to be accepted as a Tentative List applicant, then it has to selected from the list, before it can become a WHS. And this process can take years.

CONTENT FORKING[edit]

The second relevant guideline is WP:CONTENTFORKING. It states:

A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided.

As you can see from the reference list above, 99% of this article is redundant to material that already exsits, namely the articles on the three sites being termed the 'crucible', namely Mousa, Old Scatness and Jarlshof, or is properly treated in other articles such as on the bid process, detailed in List of World Heritage Sites of the United Kingdom#2010 applicants, or on heritage sites in Scotland. There is nothing here that sustains the topic of 'crucible of iron age scotland' in any way that justifies such pointless redundancy, and per policy, is to be avoided. Cut down to just novel and non-redundant material, and ignoring the fact it is already implicit in the crucible entry in the 2010 applicant list in the previous article, this article simply states:

'The Crucible of Iron Age Shetland' referes to three sites of Mousa, Old Scatness and Jarlshof, which together are one of the 38 applicants to be on the new Tentative List of World Heritage Sites of the United Kingdom.'

That's it. This is not the basis of a separate article.

On summary style[edit]

On a matter related to forking, it is suggested that this article is an acceptable spinout because it is a summary style spinout fork. This is false, because of the fact that this material does not have a parent article from which it has been spun out of. It contains summary style sections of background material, namely on the three sites and the application process, but this does not make it a spinout article. Its inclusion only makes it more evident that this article is redundant to pre-existing articles.

MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands's "news" section. Ben Mac Dui 17:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Ben Mac Dui 17:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Notability: "From the Shetland Isles in Scotland to the Dover Strait in southern England, Tourism and Heritage Minister John Penrose has today published the list of applications to get on the UK’s new Tentative List of sites for World Heritage status." The process has formally begun. There is some way to go, but if an initial application for World Heritage Site status does not meet notability guidelines then neither does 99% of what exists elsewhere on Wikipedia. The process involved in the application is being worked on in the artcile.

"The current content of this article is simply some content from all three separate pages". True as of about an hour ago - it began this morning as part of the current Scottish Islands Collaboration of the Month. The outcome of these events is often a GAC and by this afternoon I had already started to add additional material.

Forking - sheer rubbish. The sites are nominated collectively, not individually.

Speculation - it would be if the article said it was going to be a World Heritage Site. It doesn't.

The logic of the last sentence escapes me and, but it would be improper to comment further. Ben Mac Dui 16:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion collapsed for ease of navigation MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are quite wrong if you think that that simple announcement has magically created 38 new articles. If you think this application is notable, please WP:PROVEIT. And yes, you are adding stuff to it, but I fail to see why. Why does the info about the application process need to be here exactly, when it is already included on the article about the list? This is a blatant fork, whether you think that's 'rubbish' or not - there is nothing on this page that cannot be found in other pages, and there is no reason yet for it to be presented here as a separate article. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do try hard to exhibit some sense. If a formal application to be considered one of the (say) dozen most important heritage sites in Scotland isn't notable then we are writing for different encyclopedias. I am slowly adding material as it's found - but do you really think this sort of thing happens in some off-hand way? It will have been discussed by Shetland Islands Council, SNH, the Tourist Board and others. It remains to be seen how much info is available at this early stage as it may have been under an embargo until after the formal announcement. The idea of a fork would make sense if it was just Jarlshof , or just Broch of Mousa - but it isn't and what makes the combination of all three of value will (in due course) be the meat of the article. Sadly we don't yet have Prehistoric Shetland, but when we do it will no doubt draw on this article - just as this one is drawing on others on Day 1 of its existence. Ben Mac Dui 17:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing for the encyclopoedia that has very large pages that explain what WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CONTENTFORKS actually are. Please read them, because I have, and neither of them support your claims that this article is about a separate notable topic that does not merely duplicate existing articles, or one that does not wrongly speculate that this collective site is anything other than a possible application for a tentative list for consideration of heritage status. I will let you off questioning my sense, but I will start to get bloody pissed off if you carry on talking in here without reference to any policy or guideline page at all, while simultaneously questioning my 'sense' when I have done so. This article is not 'drawing on other articles', it is duplicating their information in a wholly pointless and at times totally innaccurate way, wasting readers time. It is not a notable term or collective site yet, and whether it should be kept is decided on what is in it now, not what you may or may not be planning to add in the future, or what you speculate might have been 'embargoed' (and wtf btw? just why would anyone even embargo any info about this topic anyway? And it's been nearly a month since the announcement anyway.) And even if you can find some more info about the discussion of the application between the supporters, that is still not likely to amount to evidence of a notable topic if all you do find is from primary sources. MickMacNee (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt your knowledge of notability is a credit to the encyclopedia, but the article in its current form is a perfectly acceptable "summary style", which is synchronised with its main components. It isn't a "possible application for a tentative list" it is currently under scrutiny having applied. This is a necessary part of the procedure. I can't say who is and isn't discussing it for sure, but any formal documents prepared by civil servants are not going to hit the web until well after a ministerial announcement. Besides, the issue isn't really about primary sources as there is plenty of national media coverage. I am sorry you are in danger of coming under emotional strain, but that's really not my concern. It would be helpful if you would focus on content rather than adding narky and unnecessary little templates promoting your views on the article in mainspace. Ben Mac Dui 20:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"there is plenty of national media coverage" - PROVEIT. I've asked you three times now. If you don't understand what that means, click the linked version I gave already. All I see as evidence of notability of this grouping is news reporting stemming from the one announcement. Click the links at the top of the page if you doubt me, they are there to help people source articles up for deletion. That brief bit of news coverage of the entire list is not, and never will be, evidence of notability for what is after all one single item on the list of 38 applications. It's not even evidence of notability for the list of 38 applications!. Which is why it does not have it's own article and why this one definitely should not. And you can go on all you want about whatever some civil servant might have tucked away that you may or may not be able to use to expand the article in the future, it is absolutely IRRELEVANT to this Afd per WP:CRYSTAL. And I am focussing on content. Those 'narky' templates exist to highlight the irrelevent puffery and duplicatory padding you've added to this article, presumably because you can't find anything to say about this title beyond the announcement of an application being made (infact, this entire article is based on ONE entry in a list!), and then duplicating the three articles it refers, to along with the other details, which all already resides in other articles. It is not 'summary style', because there is nothing to summarise. The ledes of those articles serve perfectly fine as a summary for the only thing that currently binds them together - an entry in a list of applications. This article does not. And as an example of the sort of thing I haven't even tagged yet - I cannot for the life of me think why an article about an application to the tentative list for future WHS nominations, needs to specify that one of the sites is open to the public from April to September. That is not summary, that is off-topic irrelevance. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In common with many articles the subject matter builds rather than appears as a fully-formed FAC. The references are being added to, the picture is emerging. I'll get to tidying up the entries about the individual sites by and by. I was planning to start there, but got distracted by this AfD. I'll also attend to the lead of the article and umpteen other things that need improvement, none of which are especially relevant to this discussion. It is largely summary style because that is precisely what is required in respect of the individual sites. "The ledes of those articles serve perfectly fine as a summary" - in what way do they do this? Clearly if the issue appears in the lead of each one of the three, it implies each should have a separate section on the application, but then might that not lead to content forking? I'm unfamiliar with the idea of "a sort of dab page listing the three sites" - do these exist? I am sure you mean well, and perhaps anyone coming across the article in the first few hours of its existence might have queried it - but as I've explained the original idea was as a collaboration project. Scant chance of that happening now if contributors are simply going to get abused for their troubles. A further point if I may. Most of the items on the list don't need an article because like say Arbroath Abbey the article already exists and whatever information is needed can simply be added to it. This is different because there is no over-arching article into which the information could go. I'm quite happy to consider some of the detailed points you make, but it is frankly hard to do so in such adversarial circumstances. Ben Mac Dui 20:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you haven't said anything that is even remotely relevant to this deletion nomination, and have barely answered a single point in my last post. Most of your comments are just random, that have no grounding in policy or fact at all, and certainly don't do anything to prove this 'article' should exist at all. Yes, you continue to add info to the article, but again, none of it either asserts notability of this title or location, or is not wholly irrelevant filler/duplication material, as pointed out already. It's becoming frankly a rather absurd 'article' actually, with what you've put in it. It barely stays on topic at all, because there is no topic. It only makes it worse that you seem to believe that 'article development' means, sort of get it half accurate first, publish it, and then mess around with it and stuff irrelevance and filler into it. No amount of development is going to turn this into a valid article that does not simply say 'this is the name for a collection of three sites hoping for an WHS listing'. And you can cut the crap with the 'I'm sure you mean well' comments too - the Afd nomination is as valid now as it was when I arrived at the article, this is just more irrelevance. Your idea that it being mentioned in the lede of the three articles means there has to be an article on it is frankly an outrageous deception - you are the person who added it [24]! Why do you think people won't notice such nonsense?. There is no actual article to be written here, which is probably why there is no collaboration occuring. And yes, articles like Arbroath Abbey do already have their own article. And if you look at that article, you won't find any of the sort of daft material like 'process' or 'alternatives' etc you are trying to pad this one out with to make it seem like it is about a notable subject, and not merely a pointless duplication of the three site articles and other info which bleongs elsewhere. That article needs one sentence to announce the application, so why on Earth you think that translates to requiring this entire piece for the equivalent for these, is beyond me, and it appears you can't seem to explain this total disparity either, not in terms of acutal policy anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could summarise.

It is a summary style article

It is about a notable topic and the coverage by national and local sources and the role of both national and local government evident.

It is necessitated because, unlike all of the other Scottish nominations it is an application about three separate sites that have no over-arching article.

Improvements to the article by the addition of new material and the removal of information that can be more usefully presented elsewhere are a welcome part of the developmental process, but not a reason for deletion. Justification for the inclusion/exclusion of detailed material is generally undertaken on the talk page - but I have made a few comments about the items you have removed below. Ben Mac Dui 08:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Utter nonsense. Read WP:SUMMARY, this is not it. Not even close.

2. Prove it per WP:N, for the fourth time of asking. You do not have coverage, you have single mentions in the press from a single government statement. You certainly do not have significant coverage of this article. Fair enough if you had even a single source that said anything about this proposed site in detail, other than, 'this is the proposed site', but you don't

3. Well, considering the overall site is not notable based on the actual policy, there is no need for an over-arching article. It is vaporware effectively. If you actually kept it on topic without pointless duplication/forking, it could be one line long and impart the exact same information

5. What you seem to call development, everyone else calls drafting - and that is supposed to occur before you post in article space. And it absolutely is a reason for deletion when the article contains nothing but duplication/forked content.

MickMacNee (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The general topic is notable; for example, see In the shadow of the brochs which has much to say about these sites. The current title seems a bit fanciful but we might easily rename to Prehistoric Shetland, just as we have Prehistoric Orkney and Prehistoric Scotland. Such developments are a matter of ordinary editing in accordance with normal policy and deletion would be disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion collapsed for ease of navigation MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please vote based on the actual topic of the article, and not what you think it might be about. I know you like to take these Afd debates to the meta-level of PRESERVE and IMPERFECT every bloody time, but there is no point doing so with content forks like this. This article is not supposed to be about Prehistoric Shetland at all, this fact is pretty clear if you actually read it. It is about three specific sites grouped together for a WHS nomination, nothing more nothing less. What is disruptive is suggesting the topic of the article is intended as something it isn't. BenMacDui even says above he is going to create Prehistoric Shetland in addition to this article, so it hardly makes sense that this is the intended topic now does it? And seeing as this article contains not one shred of original material about brochs or the three sites or anything else about Prehistoric Shetland, it is not disruptive in the slightest to delete it as a non-notable fork. MickMacNee (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our editing and deletion policies make it very clear that we have a duty to preserve and build upon such initiatives. We observe that this article was nominated for deletion within 3 hours of its creation and that this follows upon your own work upon a related article. This seems to be an uncivil reaction to another editor working upon your topic. Do you two have a history that we should know about? Colonel Warden (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our editing and deletion policies make it very clear that we have a duty to delete non-notable content forks. Do you have a history anybody else should kow about? Do you ever vote to delete anything on Wikipedia? Do you know any other polices bar PRESERVE? Because in my experience at Afd, you really don't. It doesn't seem to matter what the article is or what the nomination reason is, every single time you turn up, plonk a vague book ref on the table, and declare the whole lot inviolate. It's beyond POINT tbh. I nominated it within three hours precisely because I do know the topic, I know exactly what the proposed article is supposed to be about, and I know precisely (confirmed in the creator's own words) that it is categorically not supposed to be an article on Prehistoric Shetland, or anything remotely resembling such a topic, where any random archeological history of Scotland book could be used as a source to say 'keep'. Instead of worrying about my motives, why don't you actually read, digest, and reply to what I said in the reply above, and in the actual deletion nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My response remains that we should retain the article for the policy reasons stated. If these seem over-familiar then this is to be expected as many AFDs are repetitive in nature, alas. I try to vary my responses so that they do not seem monotonous or unthinking but the same essential points must naturally recur. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I hope the closer reads this reply, and discounts your opinion accordingly, as a simple cookie cutter/JN vote. I certainly don't believe for a second that you've even read the nomination or the article, let alone all the related articles and references, to make any kind of informed judgement. I am frankly amazed that you think you can just brush this nomination off as repetitive/routine, and dump a form vote on it. MickMacNee (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first comment provided a relevant source and cited similar articles which we might move towards. It was therefore not a cookie-cutter JN, as you falsely claim. When reviewing the discussion, I was pleased to note that my suggestion of Prehistoric Shetland was echoed by another editor which indicated that we independently were thinking along the same lines. I'm not going to follow all this bickering which is now WP:TLDR and does not seem productive. Please note that Wikipedia should not be about winning. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not echoed. He mentioned it as a missing article in addition to this one, that is not his intended topic for this article. You two were not talking about the same thing at all, and in that respect, you did not offer a source that is even remotely relevant to this article or this Afd, unless your proposal is to completely rewrite and refocus the article, aswell as rename it to Prehistoric Shetland, which to use that to vote keep here, is stretching PRESERVE to the limits of ludicrousness frankly. It's fine if you don't want to follow discussions, but not following discussions and folliwng the usual knee jerk is precisely what is making you make totally irrelevant points here. MickMacNee (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion collapsed for ease of navigation MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this today. - "The UNESCO World Heritage List is possibly the best known list, of anything, anywhere on Earth". Perhaps the source - heritage-key.com/blogs" - is less impressive than the statement, but I couldn't resist posting it here. The existence of the LAWHF - hitherto unknown to me, must surely be of interest tho', give that it is a structure with a specific remit that includes supporting communities (i.e. local authorities I imagine) with potential World Heritage Sites within their areas. Ben Mac Dui 18:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's this got to do with anything? This article is not about the World Heritage List or its notability, it is about one application which cannot and will not inherit its notability by just being somewhere near to someday maybe getting on that notable list. And certainly not when everything there is to say about its constituent sites and it's application status already exists on Wikipedia already. MickMacNee (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tongue-in-cheek remark, but you don't seem to be too keen to admit to having a GSOH. Despite your assertion that "I know exactly what the proposed article is supposed to be about" you also seem to be under-estimating the nature of the notability of the subject matter. I don't at all mind that you that you have engaged with the article and are attempting to improve it - at no point have I said that it is either complete or sorted. It is currently in exploratory phase - but that isn't a reason to delete it. I notice that you removed the information about the Shetland "things" - which strikes me as being of relevance. I hardly think you are suggesting that this exploration of a different Shetland WHS application at the same time as "The Crucible" deserves a separate article. Arguably it would be better to include it elsewhere and make a brief "summary style" note of it here. You have also removed the LAWHF info, which I do intend to put back as it identifies an important support structure for the application. The role of SIC is clearly crucial and their attitude currently obscure. The rivalry with Orkney is also a fact of life in the Northern Isles, although it certainly needs expansion (rather than the current removal) to make complete sense. Ben Mac Dui 08:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't have the first clue what you are talking about at the best of times, such is your off the wall idea about policy and Wikipedia in general, so please, no jokes. I'm not under-estimating anything, I know what the notability of this topic is, whereas you seem to think this is already an article about an actual WHS the way you are carrying on, such as the comment about about the notability of the real list. The only thing I cannot get a handle on is what you think this article is about, because you keep adding totally irrelevant details to it about everything and anything, except the actual application. I've got no idea what an 'exploratory phase is', but it sounds like something that should have been done offline in a sandbox, and not in article space. It's bad enough that you published this with basic factual errors. The things info is irrelevant, and you are damn right that I do not see this article as the place to talk generally about heritage on Shetland generally, nobody in their right mind would - they would start an article on that topic. And based on this article existing for no other reason than being a published application for consideration, a single entry in a list of 38, then yes, on that flimsy standard, we can have articles on any old random possible site, because there is about the exact same amount of sources on both, when you cut out the irrelevant filler you've stuffed in here. I've really got no idea where you are coming from with all this speculation about the council's silence etc, it sounds like you want to play journalist with Wikipedia articles - this is not permitted. And elsewhere you've implied in the article that the application was put together by the council. So which is it? Is there any source for that fact? I've certainly not seen it. Yes, LAWHF mught be relevant, but like a lot of the info you add, it's just pure speculation on your part as to whether they are actually involved or not. Frankly, it's just more bizarre filler. MickMacNee (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and rename to Mousa, Old Scatness and Jarlshof: The Crucible of Iron Age Shetland, as this appears to be the full name under which the application is being made. This article, however, should concentrate on the sites collectively in relation to this application and avoid duplicating material covered in the articles on the individual sites. --Deskford (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this article truly covered just the collective aspects, then there really is no article here at all. What are you seeing here that justifies a keep vote? MickMacNee (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing a statement, backed up by reliable references, that this group of sites has been proposed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. This indicates to my mind sufficient notability to merit coverage. --Deskford (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The crucible is at least two application stages and many years away from ever becoming an WHS. To call this simply a 'notable proposed WHS' on the basis of that, is really stretching the very little RS that actually covers it, which is not much at all, and certainly not much that is independent of the 38 sites in all. It is stretching CRYSTAL to the very limit to suggest it deseves an entire article based on just that. And if it fails at the first hurdle, this article is just going to sit here forever, because of NTEMP, gradually degrading, a pointless orphan. I don't know about you, but if I came across this article in ten years, and all it said was 'these three sites were grouped together for a failed application to be a proposal to become a WHS', because that is the only thing RS support saying, I really would wonder how anybody thought it was notable at all. Infact, if it did fail at the first hurdle, this article would be a redirect in ten years, which shows that there is no notability here now, it would be bizarre to try and stop that in ten years time citing NTEMP. MickMacNee (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to the proposed move at all - it is the full name and I was just trying to keep it simple. I certainly don't see any reason to expand on the material about the individuals sites - it's summary all the way. Ben Mac Dui 08:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NN as it "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". The article makes it clear this is a planned nomination (so there is real, independent content) and discusses that aspect, then uses WP:Summary style to briefly describe the three sites. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I have no problem with a move to the full name as proposed above. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What are you defining as "significant coverage" here? Because the way I understand that phrase in other topics and other Afds, there is nothing here that even comes close to it. There is the orignal government announcment listing 38 sites, and the inevitable bits of news coverage, and nothing else. Please list them if you disagree. Despite the impression the padding in this article quite wrongly gives off as to sourcing, I've yet to see a single piece that has actually covered this one site in any detail at all. It is simply not notable, it is simply a news announcement. Even the Shetland Times piece says nothing, and that's the local paper for the site. MickMacNee (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ruhrfisch/Deskford. I rather like the "simplified" name but will not start kicking and screaming if it is changed. Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I prefer the short form too, but I thought we probably ought to use the full name under which the proposal has been made. Amongst the sources cited, I think only the Shetland Times uses the shortened name. I guess it doesn't really matter one way or the other as long as we have a redirect. --Deskford (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was BOLD and made Mousa, Old Scatness and Jarlshof: The Crucible of Iron Age Shetland a redirect here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extend or relist Because AFD is a discussion and not a vote, and some of the nominators concerns haven't even been addressed by all the keep comments, we really don't have a consensus yet. I think all the points in the nomination need to at least be addressed and consensus reached before we can consider this a closed matter. Triona (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (after edit conflict) I was about to "non-admin" close this as "keep" as so far that appears to be the consensus and there's too much participation to justify a relist. However, the nominator makes a good case for deletion. The question that should be asked is "does the umbrella term "The Crucible of Iron Age Shetland" that is used to describe these 3 sites itself have significant coverage in reliable sources?". There's no doubt that the sites themselves are notable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely that a consensus to delete will be obtained here now. The article is a new one and we see that there are proposals on the table for alternate titles and more general articles such as Prehistoric Shetland. The application for world heritage status is still pending and so we can expect more coverage as this application progresses. It seems best to close this discussion here. After some months of ordinary discussion and development, the matter can be reviewed and another AFD discussion started if it seemed that there was more likelihood of consensus then. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The is NOT an 'application for for world heritage status'. It is an application to be considered to be part of the Tentative List, which is the actual list of 'applicants' for world heritage status if you like. And waiting around for more coverage is simply basic policy violation. Worst case scenario is that the update will be - 'it was decided not to put the crucible forward for the Tentative List', and the term is never seen again. And the only person proposing a rename is you, this article is nowhere near, not even close, to being about Prehistoric Shetland in general. There is no new content here in that respect anyway, there is nothing to merge and no sensible reason to rename it without almost total rewriting, so no, it is not best to close the discussion here and leave this duplicated content just floating. MickMacNee (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have multiple editors mulling over the best name for this article. Almost total rewriting is just fine and would be quite consistent with our editing policy which requires us to keep and build upon any useful scraps. Generalising the topic into Prehistoric Shetland would be an excellent solution which would be easy to develop using sources such as Ancient Shetland which covers all of these sites and more besides. I would have been bold and started this already but this ridiculously bloated AFD is now obstructing productive progress. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaicho for a better example of how to get on with it. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only disruption here is your amazingly persistant and willfull refusal to listen. For the last time, the very last time, you are the ONLY PERSON who thinks this article is/can/should be about Prehistoric Shetland. That's a simple FACT. Ben MacDui pointed out that that subject was not covered in Wikipedia yet, and should be, but IN ADDITION to having this article. He actually said "Sadly we don't yet have Prehistoric Shetland, but when we do it will no doubt draw on this article", if you really cannot be bothered to go check. The other editors talking about renames HAVE STATED NO INTENTION of changing this article's focus, they are simply discussing what is the proper name of this application, the current short form The Crucible of Iron Age Shetland, or the fuller long form, Mousa, Old Scatness and Jarlshof: The Crucible of Iron Age Shetland. This is all perfectly clear if you actually READ WHAT OTHER PEOPLE WRITE. And you are free to disagree all you want, but frankly, when there is NO NEW CONTENT HERE about Prehistoric Shetland that is not present in other articles, and when the article would absolutely requite a COMPLETE REWRITE AND A RENAME to make it even close to resembling that topic, then in that case, it is simply TOTALLY POINTLESS voting keep here. That is what is disruption frankly, because you are the only person who advocates this stance, so keeping it on that basis would be a total waste of time, because I have no doubt that if it were kept, and someone tried to rename it and completely rewrite it, they would cite the Afd 'keep' to oppose you. Nobody is stopping you starting an article on Prehistoric Shetland. Go for it. This deletion nomination has NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT TOPICS MERITS. You can even start by copying this article to do it if you really want to, although I have absolutely no idea why you would do so. MickMacNee (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most common position held by other editors here is that the article should be kept, period. Their position is compatible with the development of the Prehistoric Shetland topic. Your suggestion that the article be deleted is not because it would leave a red link where we have a notable feature of Prehistoric Shetland. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. It's hardly worth replying anymore, you have such incomprehensible logic I don't even think we are speaking the same language, let alone dealing in commonly understood concepts. I think you are living in a delusional fantasy world if I had to be brutal about it. That's the only way I can describe your perception that everybody voting keep in here is doing so because the ultimate goal is to write Prehistoric Shetland, and declaring this term as non-notable would make that an impossibility. MickMacNee (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original application, announced by the UK government was covered by most if not all national media and much of the local media concerned. This event was commented on by 3 ministers of the crown. The article is a summary of information at the 3 sites concerned, and World Heritage Sites in Scotland. You will note that at the last named records that "According to Historic Scotland "Scottish Ministers identify and put forward sites to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for nomination"." The idea that these applications occur because someone thinks they are a good idea one day is well wide of the mark. What is frustrating is that for the most part this dialogue does not take part in public. The LAWHF website is not even updated for the announcement yet and the public information it provides is very scant. Given that the nominator is in a minority of one, I'd like to ask a question the other way around. Given that all bar one of the other 37 current applicants have articles where this process could be created as a section (and that all 2006 Scottish nominations had articles), why would we not have an article that covers the subject matter? Ben Mac Dui 08:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about turning it around, these new commenters have it spot on - you have singularly failed to address the reason for nomination, and per CONSENSUS, there is no way that a dumb vote count can ever over-ride a policy based argument, if it has not even been addressed, let alone rebutted with another policy based argument. Common sense arguments are also allowed, but they have to actually make sense - and none of yours do frankly. The key issue is you simply don't seem to understand what notability is - the 'coverage' and comments from ministers you refer to are not about the crucible as a TOPIC, it is about the announcement of 38 applicants, or in the case of the Scottish press/ministers, just the Scottish ones, understandably. The crucible is covered in a trivial manner - 4 of the 6 refs simple give it's name as a list entry, just like the primary source it all comes from (with some not even mentioning 'crucible'!). Even the news source from Shetland, does not present anything different. Nobody is likely to suggest that that list of 38 now has independent notability on the basis of that collection of paltry coverage, (well, you might I suppose), so it is obviously absurd to then claim it is evidence that one single entry on its own has notability, not when the only novel info you can add to it amounts to a couple of lines. The fact that all the other sites have articles too is totally irrelevant - this is another of your policy problems. You see an announcement about 38 sites, and you think that equates to 38 new sections in 38 articles. Talk about wastefull duplication! This is not how Wikipedia editting works. The correct way is to detail that announcement and all the process detail in one article, which already exists, and that can be referred to with a link and a sentence at best in the actual articles about the sites. The only thing needed for the 'crucible' term (and there are other terms without articles too), is to redirect it to the application details, or your WHS in Scotland article (arguably another unecessary content fork tbh). Per standard policy and common sense, if you have nothing to say about this application from actual RS (another issue is the sheer amount of 2+2ing in the article using refs that don't mention the crucible application but you seem to think are relevant to notability), then you simply do not create the article as a placeholder, while we wait around for something to say in it that is not simply content forked from elsewhere. All that does is create editting and consistency overheads, with zero benefit for readers. MickMacNee (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We simply disagree about what the standards for notability ought to be. I see coverage in umpteen national newspapers, the local one, and the involvement of significant political figures and believe this constitutes notability, given the overall importance of the subject matter. You see something different. I don't think we are going to persuade one another and I see no point in going on about it length. I am of course continuing to research the topic. I remain convinced that it is necessitated because, unlike all of the other Scottish nominations, it is an application about three separate sites that have no over-arching article. Ben Mac Dui 20:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can disagree all you want, but it's not a definition that is supported either by the wording of the actual guideline, or by any Afd conclusion I've ever seen that rested on notability. If this Afd determines this topic is notable based on this coverage, I may well just put the guideline up for deletion as patently not needed, because your definition barely goes beyond simply verifiable existence in RS, and that was the standard before anyone even thought about writing WP:NOTE. If you applied your standard of notability to other topics, like films or people, you would end up with totally bonkers outcomes, which would not resemble their actual existing and well accepted topic specific guidelines at all. That is not a sign you are on the correct side of this disagreement at all, and you not realising this or accepting it without any reason other than pure self-belief is not going to do you any good on Wikipedia, you will simply find that your articles will eventually all be deleted or merged, and your time here will have been wasted. There are so many issues with your ideas of coverage it's just not credible to call this a simple disagreement between two valid ideas about what notability is - you don't have multiple sources, you have WP:109PAPERS reporting on the same primary source, you don't have ministers talking about the crucible, you have ministers talking about all the applications, etc etc etc. I will take this all the way to a site wide Rfc if necessary, because I am not prepared to have such a basic, core idea like WP:N, which until I met you I believed was very widely understood, so massively misinterpreted in this way to produce such a bizarre outcome. MickMacNee (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is not core policy; it is not even a policy. There are numerous cases of topics here which lack significant notability but which are retained nonetheless because their ex officio status seems significant. A putative world heritage site seems of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct about this and I wish this argument was made more often instead of trying to shoehorn non-notable subjects into WP:N. Yes the subject fails WP:N but should be kept anyway because "purple monkey dishwasher" would be a valid keep argument. (but never for a BLP) If enough people agreed with this and enough AFDs were closed this way, it would eventually result in a new guideline WP:PURPLEMONKEYDISHWASHER. That's how many of our older guidelines and policies were created. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this context, the proposed PURPLEMONKEYDISHWASHER would be - 'must have been namechecked in RS as an applicant to be on a Tentative List to become a WHS someday in the future'. By my calculation, that's probably a few thousand sites all around the world. And if not a single one needs any other details beyond that basic namecheck in RS, that just sounds like a charter for turning Wikipedia into a useless vaporware database, a pointless collection of out of date announcements and press releases, and a whole bunch of pointlessly duplicated forking, making it more likely that even that usefull and notable info gets corrupted as an actual valuable information source. Me, I'd rather have adherence to WP:N as a basic requirement than that scenario, but then I think that Wikipedia pages are supposed to be for topics we can actually say something about, because other people have actually said something about it. It's wacky I know, but it just might work. Colonel Warden needs to get real, and realise that 'WP:N is not even a policy' as an Afd argument is, and always will be, a fringe viewpoint. I wouldn't even call that statement an example of being simply an inclusionist, it's beyond even that tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to find cases where topics are kept at AFD regardless of their lack of notability. This is not a fringe viewpoint - it is common practise. It is presumably for this reason that notability has not been accepted as a policy, despite attempts to promote it. Mick therefore misrepresents the status of this guideline. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of those cases remotely compare to this? I know of some of them, like pro-footballers, and their reasons for being kept, and they don't even come close to this example, so I doubt it very much. Frankly, if there was ever a case where it could be possible to push the community into accepting N as a policy to prevent auto-assumed-notability being claimed for situations not covered by things like WP:ATHLETE, it is this one. You can wish all you want that simply ignoring N is not a fringe viewpoint, but to assess that for any truthfullness, one would have to examine your general voting record at Afd, against the community average. If you routinely make arguments and interpretations like the ones I'm seeing in here in other Afd's, I would be amazed if you were even within 30% of the community median. MickMacNee (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments have failed to convince the other editors commenting here and so it is you that is marching to the beat of a different drummer. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we'll see about that. The average notability Rfc attracts around 30 editors at least, this Afd has attracted about 5 plus an IP, not counting the creator or nominator. There's you, who can't decide if it is notable, or whether that doesn't matter; there's Deskford and Ruhrfisch, who, while they are not exactly voting 'JN', there rationales have not exactly been rigorous rebuttals of the nomination. Crucially, after their and your votes, two new people made it clear that the deletion rationale has not been addressed, supported by the subsequent relist. Tom Reedy wants to delete or merge, and seems to acknowledge the rather vapourness of this article's existence. SmokeyJoe is a keep, but not exactly emphatic, for the same reasons. I suspect he is not averse to a simple redirect while we wait for some actual information to emerge to support an article. Then there's an IP's single vote, who does not address the nomination. So, all in all, your assertion that this is cut and dried is just another stretching of the reality. I'm fully prepared to present to the community the question of WTF? if this finishes as a keep. Such craziness cannot be right, either the guidelines are wrong, or the few people voting keep here are wrong. We'll see what the closer says before pondering a DRV, but I will most likely file one, especially if the closer gives a one word close. MickMacNee (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into World Heritage Sites in Scotland (or more realistically, perhaps into a new article, Tentative Sites Proposed for World Heritage Status in Scotland). To me this smacks of WP:PROMOTE as an attempt to lend a veneer of vintage notability to the name (which was not really a collective name until whoever wrote the application dreamed it up). Tom Reedy (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you are quite right. A significant aspect of the idea is to promote Scotland in general and Shetland in particular. That is part of what WH sites do. The name has been invented, just as was "Heart of Neolithic Orkney" some years ago. But I am reporting these events which have taken place after due consideration by third parties - which is what we do. Ben Mac Dui 20:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 17:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Do not delete. The multiple uses of the term demonstrates its notability. Normal editorial decisions may mean that the content should be located at other articles. At worst, it could be a disambiguation page pointing to the three sites. However, I think that the current page is quite suitable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'multiple uses' of this term comes from the routine reporting of the contents of one primary source. And the 'usage' is trivial, 4 sources say nothing at all about it except to print it as a list entry, some not even using the actual term - that's how much notice they took of it. The only thing this level of coverage actually proves is that the country has more than one newspaper, and they report news. And let's not kid ourselves that if this Afd declares a 'keep', that people (well, one person), is not then going to play bloody murder if someone then made the perfectly reasonable editorial suggestion that this could simply be a dab page. These things never go down like that. No, it would be seen as an endorsement that the 'Crucible of Iron Age Shetland' is somehow notable, even though that's not a conclusion anybody could reach if they actually bothered to look at the sources and actually read WP:N. MickMacNee (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that "routine reporting" is necessarily a precluding criterion from meeting or beating WP:N, and in this case I am happy for this reporting of a term to stand as evidence that the term should be covered (at least mentioned) in the encyclopedia. The fact that there has been reporting is an argument that the primary source information is worth mention. I agree that "a consensus to keep" result could easily be misread as a reason to not change the current presentation, and so I have changed my bold !vote accordingly. At the other extreme, "a consensus to delete" would also be unhelpful to the proper editorial process. Perhaps I am significantly more eventualist than you? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did make it plain in the nomination that deletion and then recreation as a redirect or other sensible arrangement of the basic content like a rich dab page was perfectly acceptable to me, but the starting state of the article was such a violation that I do not think it should be acceptable, and cannot remain in the history, because it was all effectively just a fork, coatracked onto what we can agree to disagree is quite meagre evidence of notability if the term is being applied in a way that means evidence beyond simple verification of existence of the name. So, to clarify, if you had changed your vote to redirect, I would not be objecting to that. If the article were not simply duplication, I'd would even have been fine with a merge, but it isn't, so I'm not. I can embrace eventualism too, but really, the best case scenario that I can foresee for the next few years of possible article development, is that we might need to add another line to the article stating 'on date xyx it was added to the Tentative List', and a few more generically happy yet vacuous renta-a-quotes. BenMcDui says he's doing research, but I've not seen him find anything that mentions the crucible, he is adding a bunch of material that is just generic or relevant by implied association. Nobody that I have seen has presented any case for suggesting that even a decision to approve adding it to the Tentative List is going to instigate a large influx of new material about an entity called 'the crucible'. This article would still be simply based on the basic news reporting of those two simple events, which really do not justify this large scale forking operation. And God only knows what will happen if these articles do get more editor attention if it did get on the Tentive List - how would they even know which article to improve? The development of a common branding or infrastructure or financial arrangement across the entire 'crucible' entity is the sort of detail this article should have, and it would have if it were even remotely a notable 'thing' at this point in time, but instead, it has a mixture of redundancy and pointless details, and not much else. If anything, it's only going to get in the way of people actualy wanting to write a well structured article on the crucible if good quality and highly relevant information did later emerge. Right now, I can't see how anyone taking that term from the newspapers and doing a Wikipedia lookup on it, is not going to be dissatisfied at having to read all of this, and then realise it's just duplication of the three site articles bunched with repetion of the basic stuff they read in the newspaper about the state/stage of the application. MickMacNee (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do continue to research and I confess to a degree of frustration that various websites that you might expect the occasional update to are currently silent (it's August), but I still think the existing sources are perfectly adequate for a basic article. You still haven't explained the concept of a "a sort of dab page listing the three sites". Re a "rich dab page", dab pages with citations etc. are unacceptable to the MOSDAB police as I have found to my cost. Dab pages disambiguate. Summary style articles summarise. It's pretty clear which kind of article this is. To the best of my knowledge you can't redirect to three different articles. Ben Mac Dui

We can discuss that with the DAB people if necessary, but I will say it is not my preferred option because it merely papers over the fundemental flaw of this article. And we've been over the idea that this is somehow a summary article before - it absolutely is not, because it is not a summary of a larger article. This is made perfectly clear in WP:SUMMARY, if you haven't yet read it in all this time, please do so. The article is in essence, like any other - it asserts a topic exists, and attempts to explain it. Yes, it contains sections that can be called summaries of other articles, but their inclusion is not what justifies this article's existence per WP:SUMMARY. You have totally confused the concept of summarising information, and justifying an article based on the fact it is a summary of another article. And the overall quality of the summary parts of this article is simply poor anyway, as explained below. As we see from your frustration, the topic does not exist in the real world with sufficient notability to yet justify an article, which is why you are now scratching around trying to guess what might or might not be relevant material and just adding it, to go with the summaries, which, without any actual topic here, is just redundant filler. No matter how bloated this gets, based on the actual coverage, there can never be a coherent narrative to this article, there is nothing glueing it together, and there is zero benefit to the reader in lying to them about what this article is about, before they have to suffer the wasted time finding out for themselves. We don't need to redirect to three articles, redirecting to the article that already explained the actually novel parts of this article, would suffice, as it already contained all the relevant sources and wikilinks to allow the reader once they have been appraised of what 'the crucible' is, to then actualy go to the more informative other articles which contain the actual useful, and non-redundant, information. MickMacNee (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is pretty clear the subject is a collection of notable sites that have been bundled for the application as part of a well publicized process. The process itself is explained and generally well written, that is my main concern. And reliable sources confirm that everything here is verified. This doesn't smack of a campaigning effort but more of an encyclopedia treatment of the subject. As the process unfolds the naming issues will sort themselves out as more news media discuss the proposals. 71.139.18.173 (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is the editor's only edit to Wikipedia MickMacNee (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarity and/or nice writing is not a defence against the given nomination, nice articles which are not notale or have other issues like being content forks, are routinely deleted. The process is well written and explained niceley because I was able to correct it's original innaccurate and wholly over-detailed version, using the copy we already have in the article for discussing the process, - again, this does not address the nomination reason, it infact reinforces it. While others have said this smacks as a campaigning article, I didn't, so again, technically, this also does not address the nomination. And finally, yes, RS confirm V, but again, this was never challenged in the nomination (although there is now a hell of a lot of basic supposition of relevance included, which only clouds the basic verfiability of the article). I hope you can see what I'm getting at....but if it's not clear, please could you actually address the deletion nomination. It's all I ask...., and is after all how Afd is supposed to work. MickMacNee (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the deletion nomination directly is made difficult because it is such a dog's dinner. The essence of the complaint seems to be notability and content forking. The notability argument fails because we have adequate coverage in reliable sources and, in any case, a putative world heritage site is sufficiently momentous that it merits an entry by virtue of its status. The content forking argument fails because the article is neither redundant nor POV pushing and there is clearly some functional purpose to bringing this material together under this or a similar title. Both notability and forking are guidelines not hard policies and so allow plenty of latitude and discretion in their interpretation. The attempts of the nominator to act as the judge of his own case, pushing his own interpretation of the matter, seem excessive and it should be clearly understood that his arguments are not accepted and so we should agree to disagree. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The notability argument fails because we have adequate coverage in reliable sources" - nope, not proven in the slightest. People can see the level of coverage in the restatement, which also contains full reproduction of the relevant WP:N wording that defines what is and is not 'adequate coverage' if you are hoping to present evidence notability. It is nowhere near adequate using those wordings, and I find it odd that your strategy in here seems to be to have your cake and eat it - in some posts you say that the article has satisfied WP:N, in others, you say it is a topic that does not need to meet WP:N and trot out the 'it's just a guideline' excuse. MickMacNee (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"a putative world heritage site is sufficiently momentous that it merits an entry by virtue of its status" - pure personal assertion coloured by your inclusionist mindset. This view of 'automatic worth' is not supported by any generic wording of a policy or guideline that people could find to verify this is a legitimate view. If 'the crucible' is a 'putative' WHS, then any random teenager having a trial at Grimsby Town, is a putative Premier League footballer. It's a stretch and a half.
"The content forking argument fails because the article is neither redundant nor POV pushing" - I never onces said it was a POV fork, but it is a redundant fork. You can deny it all you want, but people can simply check the articles that were used to scrape together this one and decide for themselves. I don't think you've even looked tbh, because a cursory check shows that even know, when the author has asserted many times that this is a 'summary article', and not just a cut and paste hack job, that for example, the entire Jarlshof section is just a copy and paste job from the first two paragraphs of the Jarlshof article lede. Oh, and guess what the third paragraph of that article's lede is about - you guessed it, this application. The section in this article about Old Scatness is 525 characers long, while our entire article on the site is just 862 characters. Again, it has simply been copied and pasted from the whole of the first and part of the second paragraphs of that article, leaving behind in our main article only details such as details of tours and site facilities. If that is not evidence of redundancy, then I question if you know what the word means. Again, people can go check the actual wording of WP:FORK to see if this qualifies, it's in the restatement
"there is clearly some functional purpose to bringing this material together under this or a similar title" - simply a vague assertion not backed up by the clear evidence above of what it actually is. There is no functional purpose to this that would not also be delivered by a redirect, unless you think that it is Wikipedia's function to waste people's time, assert notability where it does not exist, and make the chance of errors greater by not properly managing the material being randomly cut and pasted and duplicated for no good reason. MickMacNee (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect would be unsatisfactory because there are three components to this topic and so there is no single clear target. And too, redirection is not achieved by use of the delete function. There is not the slightest case for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the target where all of the information was copied from to create the application part of this article? Or even Ben's WHS in Scotland fork. You've read both right? You must have, that's basic due diligence in a forking case. MickMacNee (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have lost me again. Which "target" it this? I don't think you can mean List of World Heritage Sites of the United Kingdom, which merely provides a list and enlarges on none of the Scottish or Shetland dimensions - and nor should it. It's a perfectly good list. Ben Mac Dui 09:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, by both vote count and argument-weighting. That said, there is a fair consensus that the article is in need of a good amount of work again, and such work will be necessary to avoid future deletion discussions. Best regards to all, and thanks especially for a largely civil discussion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Art student scam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Israeli art student scam

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

This article was nominated on deletion on 4/3/2010. It was kept as "no consensus", and only because it was "rewritten intensely" according to the closing administrator. Now it was rewritten once again, and it is back to it's problematic form. This article is not encyclopedic, because it is a collection of rumors that were strongly denied by the officials. Nobody ever got convicted in any "spying" cases mentioned in the article. Part of a renewed article represents just another 9/11 and spying conspiracy theory that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article that apparently is "Art student scam". Broccoli (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Article reads like a tabloid rather than an encyclopedia--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is the perfect description of WP:SYNTH. A number of different unconnected articles are brought together to create a concept. Any possible redeeming factor is outweighed by the fact that this article is hijacked by editors who do nothing else on Wikipedia but point out any possible misdeeds done by Jews and Israelis. When they run out of reliably sourced misdeeds, they make up new misdeeds.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as before. I believe that the closing administrator of the previous AfD was right in giving it a chance, since the trimmed "globalized" version of the article was fairly balanced and neutral. However, it is clear that we can only make this a good article in theory, while in practice there is always going to be a number of editors who will make a gargantuan effort to rewrite the article in their vision (which is not neutral, suffers from extreme undue weight and synthesis). There doesn't seem to be any solution at this point other than deletion. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a mess. The few lines about petty scams serve as a tiny rack for what's essentially a huge NPOV coat, and Bc's point about SYNTH is right on. PhGustaf (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic itself is notable as evidenced by the sources and the fact that an article, perhaps not this current version, had support as a notable topic. If there are issues with specific content those can be worked out through the normal channels. If the people here have a problem with specific content failing to abide by Wikipedia policies they should first try to go to the relevant noticeboard or open an RFC. Deletion is not one of the channels that are to be used with such issues. The topic of an art student scam is notable, which is the only thing that matters at AFD. SYNTH issues should be taken to the OR noticeboard and POV issues to the NPOV noticeboard. That or opening an RFC. nableezy - 18:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per well-said rationale of Ynhockey.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject, as shown by extensive coverage by all the major US news services as well as some in Britain, based on field reports by numerous US government agency employees. We do not delete an article related to some supposed conspiracy or scam just because some government official announces there is nothing to it. It is in the nature of government spokesmen to avoid offending friendly nations. We do not delete an article about a notable subject because it offends some editors. Deletion is not a substitute for editing when the subject is clearly notable. Edison (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ynhockey and brewcrewer. Nableezy, a quote from WP:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position: "Wikipedia does not publish original research", so if SYNTH applies, which has been argued for convincingly, deletion is not up for debate. Edison, even if the topic of a synthesized WP entry should be notable it must not be published. --tickle me 19:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a topic is notable there is no cause for deletion. If there is a version of this article that people felt was notable and met Wikipedia content policies this article should not be deleted. Such a version exists (e.g. this). We fix articles that are notable but fail content policies such as NPOV or NOR. Whether the topic itself is notable is what counts at an AfD. nableezy - 20:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

> a version .... that people felt was notable ... Such a version exists

when and by whom has that been decided? --tickle me 20:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about the first AfD? Many of the users who had voted to delete changed their vote after the article was rewritten. nableezy - 20:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that "no consensus" was reached, so that doesn't seem to be a strong case for notability. --tickle me 07:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote? I wrote that many people, including the original nominator of the AfD, changed their vote to a keep based on the rewrite. Read the closing statement. They [the changes made in the rewrite] have also caused some, including the nominator, to change their opinion from "delete" to solutions that do not require deletion (see the section "Article rewritten", below). Notably, no new "delete" opinion has been registered after the end of the rewrite. Also, most of the "delete" opinions are not because of perceived problems with the topic as such (e.g., non-notability), but rather because of perceived flaws in the article content (such as fringe, coatrack, synthesis, etc.). The delete votes here suffer from the same flaw as those there, that people dislike the content or feel it is SYNTH or a COATRACK of OR. Fine, fix the problem. Notability is the determining factor for whether or not an article is deleted. The AfD is being used because people are unwilling to deal with the normal procedure for solving a content dispute. That is what this is, not a discussion on the actual notability of the topic, which is what AfD is supposedly about, but rather people object to specific content in an otherwise notable article. We dont delete notable articles because some of the content fails OR or NPOV or whatever else, we fix those problems. nableezy - 16:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment There's nothing notable in that article, only tabloid rumors picked up by few sensation hungry newspapers. Nobody ever got convicted. I read that those 5 Israelis, who were arrested on September 11 were put in the same room with few Pakistani Muslims. They agreed to declare a hunger strike together to protest the arrest. Many innocent people were picked up on September 11, yet the article talks only about Israelis. If mainstream media has more garbage about Israel than about all other countries combined, it does not mean all that garbage should be added to Wikipedia. That article was written with the only purpose to smear Israel. As user:Jimbo Wales admits "we have a problem with anti-Israeli bias, not the other way around". It ought to stop!--Mbz1 (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The allegations are backed my numerous reliable sources. The users voting to delete this are acting in political coordination to delete reliably sourced information because of WP:idontlikeit.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243 Haaretz
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/1387069/US-arrests-200-young-Israelis-in-spying-investigation.html The Telegraph
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/mar/06/internationaleducationnews.highereducation The Guardian
http://www.heraldscotland.com/five-israelis-were-seen-filming-as-jet-liners-ploughed-into-the-twin-towers-on-september-11-2001-1.829220 Sunday Herald
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_12_18/ai_84396672/ Insight

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020307&slug=notspies07 washington post, this was written before many of the other articles and is the only one to claim to dismiss the allegations, however; the post admitted to not bothering to obtain the 60 pg. Dea document

http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html Salon.com
http://web.archive.org/web/20020321021731/http://real-info.1accesshost.com/janes1.html Janes Intelligence
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html Creative Loafing
http://www.forward.com/articles/5250/ This article refers to a different situation of Israelis spying on Canada in 2004 that was dismissed, but treats the 1999-2001 allegations of Israeli spying on the U.S. as inconclusive
20 minute Four Part Fox News Special with Brit Hume and Carl Cameron about Allegations of Israel Spying on the United States
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/8/cheering_movers_and_art_student_spies Democracy Now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) 15:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI think both the spy story and con are notable and could get separate articles. However, this one is too far gone to be fixable in the near future. Variables including what the scope actually is still need to be addressed. And the original version (which this one is similar to) did not have enough support to keep during the last AfD. I lean towards deletion and editors writing up some drafts before it goes live in the main space.Cptnono (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a very notable article that is well sourced. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And notability is not the concern here. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion: "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". Namely points 1 and 2 (WP:NOTADVOCATE and the rest). There is so much soapboxing, pushing of opinions on the subject (or at least one of the two subjects), and lack of presenting the information in an appropriate tone that it is not appropriate in the main space. We have had our chance and failed. Time to remove it and start from scratch. Wikipedia:Article Incubator might be a good start. Merging some of the information into another article (specific to the spying or Israeli espionage in the United States/Mossad might be an option. Cptnono (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Return to sane state and keep. The scam itself is borderline notable even without the conspiracy theory. In my opinion Wikipedia is able to deal with the conspiracy nonsense adequately, and the best place to do so is as a side remark in article on the scam in general. We generally don't delete articles just because they are POV pushing or conspiracy theorist magnets. Full protection in a sane state that reflects the consensus of the last AfD may be a good idea, though. Hans Adler 22:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The thing is that this does not work like that,Hans Adler. That article was quite for some time, but then a single article account came about, and started pushing her agenda on each and every noticeboard she was able to find. If the article is returned back "to sane state" as you're suggesting, sooner or later (rather sooner than later) there will be tries to make it look as tabloid yesterday gossips once again. Wikipedia will only benefit, if that so called article is deleted and forgotten. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Below is the version of the article before I started editing. What mbz1 has referred to as "fine" and a "sane state." Keep in mind, this article had originally been about Israeli spying allegations, the focus, however, had been completely twisted from being about the spying allegations to being about an unrelated chinese tourist trap. The article was basically whitewashed of referrences to Israel and mention of the inconclusive allegations was pushed to the bottom of the page where the spying was unequivically stated to be an "urban myth" without qualification despite numerous reliable sources pointing toward the, at the very least, inconclusive nature of the allegations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Preciseaccuracy (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic case of "man bites dog" being reported widely and in detail because it sells newspapers, and the subsequent "um, no, the man didn't so much bite as beat the dog" getting much less space because it's much less interesting.

That often happens with conspiracy theories. They are reported more widely than their refutations because they are more interesting and appealing than their refutations.

It is important that Wikipedia covers notable conspiracy theories (such as this one), because we have the luxury of not having to sell papers. We can get things write, based on an intelligent evaluation of the sources. In this case the later reports make it clear that the earlier reports were erroneous/misleading, and we need an article which reflects this. Hans Adler 16:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's what administrator AliveFreeHappy said about the article's sources "Sources on a simple google search seem to say that the supposed DEA report in question is in and of itself not real - it was produced by a disgruntled DEA employee who planted the story.", and another quote by the same user: "Be assured that I have read what you've linked to and I appreciate the effort you put into it, but I don't reach the same conclusion that you do."--Mbz1 (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user above Alivefreehappy is strange, he claims that there is an "overwhelming body of evidence" that denounces this as a myth, but refuses to provide the links. The Sunday Herald wrote about this in 2003, two years later in a very serious manner. The second forward article was written in 2004 and treats spying on the u.s. in 2001 as inconclusive. Haaretz,the Forward, the Sunday Herald, Janes Intelligence, Insight, Salon, the Newspaper Creative Loafing, Democracy Now all came after the post claimed to "debunk" this and all treated spying allegations as inconclusive and not a myth. The washington post didn't even bother to obtain the dea document.

With regards to the dea document "To someone not familiar with the 60-page DEA memo, or to reporters who didn't bother to obtain it, the fact that a disgruntled employee leaked a memo he wrote himself might seem like decisive proof that the whole "art student" tale was a canard. In reality, the nature of the memo makes its authorship irrelevant. The memo is a compilation of field reports by dozens of named agents and officials from DEA offices across America. It contains the names, passport numbers, addresses, and in some cases the military ID numbers of the Israelis who were questioned by federal authorities. Pointing a finger at the author is like blaming a bank robbery on the desk sergeant who took down the names of the robbers.

Of course, the agent (or agents) who wrote the memo could also have fabricated or embellished the field reports. That does not seem to have been the case. Salon contacted more than a half-dozen agents identified in the memo. One agent said she had been visited six times at her home by "art students." None of the agents wished to be named, and very few were willing to speak at length, but all confirmed the veracity of the information." " Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly the only one, who is strange (to say the least) is you, so called "Preciseaccuracy". It is you, who is a single article account, it is you, who keeps jumping from board to board, from talk page to talk page, and pushing, pushing, pushing the users to promote the article. I believe accounts like yours with conduct as yours should be topic banned for that single article you are so interested in for your own good because there were some days, when you took only four hours break in your never ending trying to promote that article, and to defame everybody, who disagrees with you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles like this harm the wikipedia. Encyclopedia articles should be generic pieces, not laced with speculation. I saw the original 'generic article and it was fine, but until the whole conspiracy section was put in making it nonsense. --Luckymelon (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please look here Band of users coordinating to delete reliably sourced article on inconclusive espionage allegations, external input requested. I do not know, if this article will get deleted, or not, but the user should be topic banned.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales page is the most neutral on wikipedia. It is clear what is going on here. A group of users pass through and do drive by delete votes. You are using this page as a weapon to delete reliably sourced content.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still thinking about how to !vote on this. In the mean time, I suggest that people read Wikipedia:Notability (events) as the most relevant guideline. Also trying a few different google phrases coudl help. ThHe first three google scholar hits with this search http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=DEA+Israeli+%22Art+student%22+&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=2001&as_vis=0 do get results that are relevant. None of the three consist of material published by academic journals or presses though one comes out of Project Censored which is university-based though controversial.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- it meets WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Many of the deletes are applying the wrong criteria. NPOV and COATRACK are not really basis for deletion, they're basis for improving the article. Seems there is slow-burning edit war over POV, but that is not a reason to delete the article. Minor4th 19:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the only basis for deletion. Please see my comments above referring directly to the deletion policy.Cptnono (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So many accounts saying "Its not about notability, but rather IDONTLIKEIT." Thus they agree it is a notable subject. Edison (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Lucky. This article looks way too much like a platform for some nasty, fringe, non-notable OR conspiracy-mongering. IronDuke 23:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ynhockey and Mbz1 Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and restore to its "sane state" per Hans Adler. I appreciate Cptnono's point of view, and it would certainly be easier on all of us to just delete the article, but I'm not eager to delete verifiable, at least marginally noteworthy subject matter (as reflected in the judicious version that Hans Adler produced during the prior AfD) because of specific editorial problems that could be addressed in a more direct way.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The topic is notable and supported by many reliable sources that mention "Israeli art scam" or "art scam" in the article headlines, not as some incidental comparison. AfD is not a way to deal with some edits you don't agree with. Revert it to the last version that survived an AfD if you like (which the nominator didn't sound like he found to be deletable) - argue out the details on the talk page or in mediation, but don't settle content disputes by mutual assured destruction. Wnt (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last version had been whitewashed and the focus had strangely shifted from being about spying allegations in the u.s. to an almost unnotable chinese tourist trap. mention of the inconclusive allegations was pushed to the bottom of the page where the spying was unequivically stated to be an "urban myth" without qualification despite numerous reliable sources pointing toward the, at the very least, inconclusive nature of the allegations.

see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to endorse a particular version, but only to emphasize that this is a content dispute, and your opponents have a very straightforward remedy available to them that doesn't involve deletion. Wnt (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - (Disgraceful Preciseaccuracy conspiracy theories/Jimbo canvassing aside), the topic is for sure notable as shown by coverage by multiple RS. None of the arguments given for deletion seem to comply with our deletion policy which requires us not to delete if something can be fixed by editing. Which is certainly the case here, as the very nominator and delete !votes agree. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder, if users, who voted to keep bothered to read the links I provided about the opinion of the administrator, who has done research on the sources provided by Preciseaccuracy on the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard by her request? Here's one more time: Administrator AliveFreeHappy said about the article's sources "Sources on a simple google search seem to say that the supposed DEA report in question is in and of itself not real - it was produced by a disgruntled DEA employee who planted the story.". There's nothing to be fixed there. That article is a disgrace and should be deleted. Here's the document that describes 9/11 conspiracy theories involving Jews and Israelis including the story about art students scam see page 18. The name of the document is: "Unraveling Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories" So, the question is: should an article that is yet another Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theory be kept on Wikipedia? The answer is: No! --Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that the allegations are true. I am saying that they are notable. should an article that is yet another Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theory be kept on Wikipedia? The answer is: yes, if it is a notable conspiracy theory. --Cyclopia ^talk 01:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but then it should be written as it is in the document I linked to. It should be added to the right categories, while taking out of the wrong ones. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is OK but it has nothing to do with article deletion, since it can (and should) be dealt with editing. --Cyclopia ^talk 01:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I assume that you would not mind changing the name of the article with accordance to the name of the document I linked to (Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Art students spying ring), just to call the things with their real names, you know.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your twisting the argument mbz1, this article is about spying allegations, not 9/11 conspiracy theories or urban myths.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your twisting the argument PA, this article is about a con, not spying allegations. That was done according to consensus. But if it were about spying allegations then it being called a myth (which I did adjust per your argument) and the 9/11 conspiracy theory is part of it.Cptnono (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't done by consensus. As fences said ". And we are not bound by what people argued at that AfD; many of the deletion arguments were based simply on WP:INDONTLIKEIT. The arguments that attempt to dismiss this as a "conspiracy theory" and brush it under the carpet should not be given weight. The spying allegations are what really made this scam notable; it barely scrapes notability without it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Art_student_scam&diff=376834714&oldid=376830608

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Mbz1, you're referring to Haaretz and The Forward as bastions of antisemitism? Your reliable source is the adl, a political organization that claims to fight defamation but is currently trying to get a muslim mosque banned from new york? http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am quoting the RS document I linked to.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The adl is a pro-israeli-advocacy group. Of course they are going to deny the allegations that Israel was spying on the United States. The other sources refer to the spying allegations as inconclusive. The guardian, telegraph, sunday herald, haaretz, the Forward ect. are not outlets for antisemitism. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to push any conspiracy theories. The inconclusive allegations shouldn't be referred to by the derogatory version of the word conspiracy theory. The sources treat the spying allegations in a very serious manner and at the very least as inconclusive. but once again this is what the wikipedia article looked like before I began editing, an article about spying allegations had been twisted to being an article about a chinese tourist trap where the allegations were described as an urban myth without any qualifiation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's altogether too much thinking going on here. This is Wikipedia, where very basic logical deductions are liable to be denounced as "original research". AfD is not supposed to be some kind of star chamber where people figure out Which Side Is Right, what is the True Truth, or how paranoid is too paranoid. Wnt (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about notable allegations of espionage supported by many reliable sources. Have a separate article about the student paintings scam. RomaC ^TALK 01:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The adl is referring to Haaretz and the Forward as outlets for conspiracies? Take this quote from Haaretz describing Washington post article. "Even this report was not enough to finally kill off the affair. Two weeks later, the New York Jewish weekly, Forward, published a report connecting the spy affair with the arrest in New Jersey, on September 11, of five Israelis whose behavior was defined as suspicious. The five were employed by a moving company and did not have valid work permits. According to Forward, the FBI concluded that the five were on a spy mission on behalf of the Mossad, and that the moving company was nothing more than a front. This story also died out quietly." Preciseaccuracy (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep The subject at hand appears to definitely be notable and i'm really not seeing WP:SYNTH happening here, as conglomerating different examples of things that are labeled art scams (involving supposed art students) isn't synthesizing anything at all. The separate instances are clearly shown to be involving the main topic. Silver seren^C 04:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article seems to be much better sourced than most Wikipedia articles... its is loaded with references. The NPOV tag seems, to me, to be politically motivated, perhaps someone doesn't like it... in any case, we should never delete such thoroughly sourced articles. The section about the alleged Israeli spy ring should probably be moved to a separate article, since it's not really about an art scam per se. After it is moved, it probably ought to be added to the list of Israel\Palestine articles under the I/P General Sanction. Kindzmarauli (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The espionage allegations are very much related to the art scam because that scam was carried out on such a huge scale that it caused the conspiracy theory. They were reported by some major papers, but only by a few and only temporarily. Treating them as minor matter in the context of the ongoing scam is perfectly adequate and gives them just the right weight, even though the conspiracy theorists obviously don't like it. Hans Adler 12:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop calling it a conspiracy theory. You're poisoning the well. This is entirely from mainstream sources reporting what they were told by the DEA and other government sources. Just because you think it's a conspiracy theory doesn't make it one. Fences&Windows 13:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop saying somebody is poisoning the well. It is a conspiracy theory blown out of the proportions by a sensation hungry media, who is always ready to go after an easy target, one of the smallest countries in the world.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with Fences and windows. This does not appear to be a conspiracy theory as the allegations are established by US Federal Govt. Agencies. This satisfies the Verifiability policy. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? That is the issue here. This conspiracy theory has been picked from a bunch of sources and this article virtually turned into a glorified post at rense.com. --Luckymelon (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fences and Windows: No, I won't stop calling it a conspiracy theory because by sorting all sources I could find at the time of the first AfD chronologically I came to the conclusion that it is a conspiracy theory. The original suspicions were of very poor quality and were misrepresented in early reports in December 2001, near the climax of "security" hysteria. This easily explains the otherwise strange fact that a small number of reputable media reported these suspicions but most of them completely ignored them. When journalists can't confirm a story they are supposed to shut up, and in most though not all cases this seems to have worked.

The "DEA report" that started everything can be found here: [25]. The incidents reported there are entirely consistent with widespread criminal operations targeting wealthy neighbourhoods and offices of well-paying employers. Some highlights from that report:

"Another incident involved an Israeli art student who attempted to sell paintings at the residence of S/A Michael Durr in Flower Mound, Texas, on March 25, 2001 at approximately 17:30. S/A Durr was slightly delayed and when he opened the door the art student had already departed and was approaching another house. S/A Durr called the Flower Mound police department, which responded. The art student was identified as David SUSI, W/M, DOB 01/09/1975, who was staying at an unspecified location in Irving, Texas. The student was not detained."
"one of the Israelis (not identified in the report) stated that five individuals in Israel were responsible for recruiting Israeli nationals to come to the U.S. for the purpose of selling art door-to-door. The detainee identified "ITAY' who lives in California, (subsequently identified as Itay SIMON), as the direct link between the five persons in Israel, and the U.S. operation. The detainee stated that the Texas contact for the organization is "Michael", who lives in the Dallas area and drives a black Jeep. The detainee stated that Michael (CALMANOVIC), is subordinate in the art-vending scheme to Itay (SIMON)."
"BEN DOR stated he works for NICE, a software engineering company in Israel. BEN DOR stated he served in the Israeli military on a unit that was responsible for Patriot missile defense. During a search of BEN DOR's luggage a printout from a Windows readme file named "WinPOS-53-readme" was found that has some reference to a file named 'DEA Groups'." (NOTE: RWE Dea AG, formerly DEA, is a reference customer for a product that includes the WinPOS point of sales software. See also NICE Systems.)
"A Vehicle Technician at the Detroit Division reported that during the fall of 2000, a female appearing to be either Jewish or Arabic in her twenties visited her home in Southfield, Kentucky in an attempt to sell her artwork. The Vehicle Technician declined to purchase any paintings and the female left. The Vehicle Technician said it appeared the female was going door to door."
"On Wednesday April 2, 2001 at approximately 8:00 PM one of two individuals rang the doorbell of the residence of a DEA Special Agent Wayne Schmidt in Duarte, California. Upon answering the door, the S/A observed the two individuals walking away from the residence and walking toward an adjoining neighbor's residence. Upon exiting the residence, the S/A observed that both individuals, a male and a female, were at the neighbor's front door and stated that they were "Israeli art students", The neighbor advised them she was not interested and both left the area walking south on foot." (A detailed explanation of fruitless DEA activity follows.)

So these spies apparently went to the trouble of seeking out the homes of random DEA staff, rang their doorbells, but in several instances didn't have the patience to wait for someone to open, instead proceeding to other potential scam victims. Maybe the following is the best illustration of the extent of the totally unprofessional hysteria:

"Aran OFEK stated that his father was a retired two-star general in the Israeli Army. (NFI). (ISP note: Israel recently launched its 5th spy satellite, identified as the OFEK 5. It is unknown if the name of the satellite and these persons is related.) "

"ISP" appears elsewhere in the document and seems to refer to "InternalSecurity Program". "Ofek" is Hebew for "horizon". (I had to remove a link to a site on Hebrew names because it is blacklisted. It's the first Google hit for Hebrew+Ofek.)

This is how it all started, and based on that it's not surprising at all that DEA officials later said there is nothing to see here, and that the reporting in reputable media simply stopped. The matter has since been embellished further and has become an example of an antisemitic 9/11 conspiracy theory in several books I foundon Google Books. Hans Adler 14:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm frankly disgusted at this nomination, these editors are POV pushing to ridiculous lengths. The attempts to sweep this incident under the carpet are blatant attempts at political censorship. They failed to label this as mere gossip and to keep articles like that from Salon out of the article, so they want to delete it. This is obviously notable, it gained substantial coverage in multiple sources over an extended period. The claim that this is simply conspiracy-mongering is a total misreading of the sources. This is not an "anti-semitic 9/11 conspiracy theory" (nice use of the label "anti-semitic" to try to sway this), it is an account of a scam (called the "Israeli art student scam" by most sources except Wikipedia), and how this scam might have been used as cover for an espionage operation. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion, but that's all the deletion arguments amount to. You simply don't like something that possibly reflects poorly on Israel. If it had been Iran or China accused of this you'd not be arguing for deletion. Fences&Windows 13:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is no small irony that the purported 9/11 connection information was inserted by one of the editors who now wants the whole thing deleted. The article seems well sourced and seems to establish a notable series of events, other perceived issues can be resolved through collaborative editing. Unomi (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cptnono and ynhockey and WP:SNYTH. Perfect example of how one editor can hijack WP by grabbing bits and pieces, sourced albeit, and write a piece that does not appear anywhere else. If this really was worthy of an article, three sentences would be needed to summarize points from these sources, not building an article from nothing. --Shuki (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nomination states no valid reasons for deletion, and there appear to be reliable sources to be cited, regardless of current article quality.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We do not accommodate vandals. We should not delete an article just because vandals may "hijack" it in the future -- if we did that, we wouldn't have any articles at all. If a subject is notable (as this seems to be) it should be kept and any content disputes should be discussed on the article's talk page. If any sources are to be questioned, they should be questioned/discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard (which is being done). Perhaps it should be renamed, but that is another question entirely. Chickenmonkey 06:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article was ostensibly going to be re-written and now has reverted as a magnet for conspiracy theorists and propagandists. Its notability os questionable at best, missing at worst (see Mbz1's comments among others), has only been used to coatrack propagandists, and has not proven it is notable inits own right and that it can remain neutral. The prevelence of OR, well-poisoning, synthesis, etc. renders this article unfit for the encyclopedia. Avi (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article may need some work, but the topic itself appears to be notable and reliably sourced. Gatoclass (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- no policy violation was cited in the nomination...this appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are sufficient reliable sources in the article to show notability. Also, as no one else has linked it: Wikipedia is not censored. I don't understand the purpose of deleting an article if it's not fully NPOV...it ought to be fixed...and deletion isn't the fix. It's unfortunate that its taking so much time from User:Preciseaccuracy to keep this article from going into the abyss of the memory hole. It does appear to be that there may be a cabal after the user...this is a most unwelcoming development.Smallman12q (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some of the article should be forked to Israeli art student scam.Smallman12q (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - conspiracy coatrack, utter un-encyclopedic twaddle. Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is an unencyclopedic article and is simply being used by Israeli bashers to try to find another reason to bash. It is nothing but rumors and allegations. Actually I heard that these Israeli students were actually going door to door getting them to sign a petition claiming that falafels are Israeli and not Arab. ~~Then if the people refused to sign, they murdered them and stole their organs and sold them at high profits to Jews in Israel.~~ KantElope (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fences and windows. Problems with the article can be addressed other than by deletion. --John (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest John, what problems do you see with the article as it is? Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article clearly establishes notability via several reliable sources. A bad-faith nomination in the same WP:IDONTLIKEIT vein that has plagued the likes of the Israeli apartheid article over the years. A band of like-minded editors who seek to delete what they cannot water down. Tarc (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If it was fixed once it can be fixed again. The deletion arguments here seem to stem from problems with the article as it is currently written, not problems with the topic itself. cmadler (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IronDuke. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 22:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Brewcrewer, User:Avi. Or consider renaming to Art student conspiracy theory on the pattern of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories. If we cannot keep conspiracy theorists from posting material of this type, the responsible thing to do is to make clear that this is a conspiracy theory directed at members of an ethnic minority.AMuseo (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitic canard another option is to move the spy-ring material to Antisemitic canard. This is what was done with a short-lived Whikpedia article accusing Isrelis of murdering victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake in order to harvest and sell their organs.AMuseo (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yesterday I contacted a public relation official from DEA. I asked her, if their agency knows anything about Israeli spies, who pretended to be art students. She sent me email, in which she said: "I have heard that this is false, an urban legend, and that none of this ever took place." How wikipedia could keep an article that is nothing by the gossips?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we disallow original research in this project, so we can avoid underhanded "so-and-so told me this, so it must be true!" maneuvers. Tarc (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ynhockey. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be a lot of coverage, and some of it from top end media sources. this may need some work but it appears to be notable.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I posted back in March 6th in the previous AFD, Ample news coverage in the countries affected, and notable government agencies have commented on it. Dream Focus 17:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, looks like that article is going to be kept. It will make a nice addition to other Wikipedia's articles on the subject of smearing Israel: Israel and the apartheid analogy and Racism in Israel and so on. It is just like another United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 that was accepted only to get reverted few years later. Oh well...--Mbz1 (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree... the article is only about the subject as presented by reliable sources and per WP:V, this is correct. Perhaps other news articles will appear stating that these stories were false or based on incorrect information, at which time we can update the article and rewrite it with the pertinent info. Wikipedia is not smearing any country or people as we are only presenting what has been reported by reliable sources. There is no anti-Israel conspiracy here. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are entailed to have your own opinion, as I am entailed to have mine. I know at least one user, who shares it. Few days Jimbo wrote wikipedia has anti-Israeli bias.

About the substance. I agree there was some noise in the news, some of which were RS, about the incident, but later it was denied in the strongest terms possible, nobody ever got convicted. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff to Jimbo's comment? Silver seren^C 18:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was awesome. I was about to ask him about the particulars but decided to leave it alone. He also isn't the glorious leader of Wikipedia so it doesn't mean that much. I believe it was on is talk page during the discussion the Preciseaccuracy started over there while shopping this issue around. Anyone recall exactly just so we don't have to go through a week of diffs?Cptnono (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Jimbo's comment I was talking about: "if anything, we have a problem with anti-Israeli bias, not the other way around"--Mbz1 (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding his comment. What he meant was that both sides are biased and that it was just as likely for Wikipedia to have a "anti-Israeli bias" as it was for it to have a pro-Israeli bias. In truth, we have both, which is what makes our articles able to be neutral, as both sides have to come to compromises that show both sides, which is the definition of NPOV on Wikipedia. Silver seren^C 20:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not going to argue with you about the meaning of the comment, but the link is here for everybody to see, and to make their own opinion what Jimbo meant. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best. I don't see how Silver seren can read it that way but it doesn't matter that much anyways.Cptnono (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares what Jimbo meant? A "cursory look" forms his opinion. An opinion that can be demonstrated as false with a large number of examples. JIMBO SAID as an argument can best be summed up as "I dont have an argument". nableezy - 20:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being a mish-mash of novel syntheses and trivial press reporting. When the trash is thrown out there's nothing left here. One sentence if we try hard. "Art student scam(s): scams by art students or persons purporting to be art students, for example (1) (2)". That could quite happily live in some other article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 P_versus_NP_problem . Whilst it would be tempting to close this as "no consensus" whilst the actual story plays out, there appears to be consensus that Deolalikar would only be personally notable if (a) the proof turns out to be correct, or (b) he becomes otherwise notable. At the moment, we have an article on a person that is purely about one event. In the event of the proof being correct, the information can always be spun out again. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Deolalikar[edit]

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

Nominating this substantially on behalf of 75.62.4.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who cannot start an AfD himself, but posted on the article talk page as follows:

I'd like to propose an AfD for this article (as an unregistered user I can't start one myself). It is way premature. Obviously if the proof checks out the article will be necessary. Otherwise it will be an embarassment to the subject, who didn't seek any sort of publicity (he circulated the proof privately to some other researchers for comment, but word got out). At least one real expert has bet long odds against the proof being right.

Status update (13 August): the proof is all but dead.[26][27][28][29] The biography reduces to "this guy got 15 minutes of unwanted internet fame because he thought he solved a famous math problem, but turned out to be wrong". The attempt is mentioned in the P vs NP article and a biography of the author is IMO definitely not needed per BLP1E. Redirection is better.

75.62.4.94 (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

While I myself suspect Deolalikar may be notable due to earlier published mathematical work, the current article is focused on one proof that has gotten a large amount of attention but may not be correct. If it is correct, Deolalikar will be as notable as Grigori Perelman; until then, this proposed proof does not establish notability. Gavia immer (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are a few sources that could be considered notable: [30], [31], however, I think the problem is due to WP:NTEMP. Also withdrawing DYK nomination. SPat ^talk 16:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Even with the jury still out on his P vs. NP proof, I think he's a notable mathematician due to his earlier published works. —bender235 (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I don't know why are we even having this discussion. He is a notable mathematician and has come up with a serious attempt at one of the most challenging problems in computing. The point is not whether his proof has been accepted by the community or not. If we want to delete this article, then we should probably also delete articles on all the physicists that came out with theories that were proved wrong. I am amazed at how we are willing to keep an article on Scott Aaronson, whose only claim to fame is a blog and a SciAm article while deleting this article about a man who has possibly done more for computing sciences with his proof than most others. Even if the proof does come out faulty, my bet is that it will open up more avenues than it closes. pratyushnidhi

~~Delete~~ redirect as afd proposer. Deolilikar has a few research publications but as far as I can tell, not enough for notability per WP:PROF. WP:PROF may not apply anyway, since he's not an academic (he works at a computer company). If the proof attempt has not been withdrawn or refuted within one week (by the time the afd closes) it may be worth mentioning in the P vs NP article, but the biography is premature either way. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (update) Proof attempt is now mentioned in P vs NP article and we should redirect to there. The attempt is now basically toast as predicted, so we definitely don't need to inflict a biography on the poor guy. (75.62.4.84 is me but my address reset for some reason). 67.122.209.167 (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In WP:PROF it says "an academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement", and that in my opinion applies to someone who works as a principal scientist at a research lab. Favonian (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure I agree that WP:PROF should agree to an industrial researcher in general (sure, those guys publish papers, but they are hired in part to basically be internal consultants for technical problems that arise in the company's business). Either way, it seems to me that he fails all the WP:PROF criteria. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't claim to understand the specific paper, but surely if someone publishes scholarly research papers, then they are "engaged in scholarly research", whether or not that's the day job? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
- He is a notable computer scientist and mathematician before this. Just because people have still not written about those papers till now does not mean we should delete the article
- The P/NP proof has gotten a lot of publicity from the computer science world. Thousands of tweets and blog posts and a mention that is a very serious attempt (if not the most serious till now) towards answering the question.
- Currently this Wikipedia article ranks in the top 5 google hits for Vinay Deolalikar. Which means this page must be getting thousands of hits and thus we should not waste the chance to expand this article. It is much harder to start an article on your own for random people than expand one. And we already seem to agree that he is notable enough in the first place to deserve the article. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to see documentation of Aksi's claim that Deolilikar is a notable computer scientist or mathematician before this, by Wikipedia's standards of notability, otherwise I don't believe it. With no disrespect intended to Deolilikar, he has a PhD in the subject and a few research publications in middle-tier(?) journals. He has no books published. He has no academic post. He has not supervised any well-known students. He has not received any significant awards or recognition. His past research results while legitimate and worthwhile don't appear major (obviously that will change in the unlikely event that the P=NP proof is valid). As it stands, plenty of graduate students have more substantial research track records than his, so I don't see the evidence of notibility. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not only that, but HP Labs is a research institution and his position as "principal research scientist" does not indicate a very prominent or senior level of attainment there. Plenty of people get that title just by being there more than several years. He hasn't won any societal or industrial awards either (of which there are plenty). If I had to map his position to that at a research university, I would put him as a postdoc or research associate, or more generously a tenure-track assistant prof. Certainly not a full professor, which in general is what we require here. 69.86.106.215 (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In addition, people keep mentioning the "serious attempt" claim, but they should understand this is a bit of jargon. "Serious attempt" does not mean it is a particularly good one. It just means this is an actual piece of academic research, not crap from some crank. It certainly does not mean this is amongst the better ones in recent years. Most researchers would circulate their proof attempts a lot more privately than the subject has done here. And there are plenty of them. It usually doesn't leak out and cause Internet fervor though. 69.86.106.215 (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You may be right. But the reason I created this article was precisely because of the 'internet fervor' it has generated and because a lot of people may be wanting to read a wikipedia entry on the guy to know what the deal is. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you implying that he leaked it himself? What's your source for that?
        I don't think there's any controversy, he wrote his paper and emailed it to various researchers in the field for comment, and one of blogged about it. I think what 69.* was getting at is that emailing something to a bunch of strangers out of the blue is not very private. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly shouldn't be deleted. Even if the proof doesn't pan out, the most Wikipedia should do with this not-yet-24-hour-old article is to merge it with P versus NP problem as having been ~~arguably the most promising approach~~ one of the more promising directions of the past four decades. Hopefully by the time the status of the proof has been settled a sketch of the proof itself including what makes it novel will have been added to the article on Deolalikar. (As an aside, Scott Aaronson's generous offer is not a bet but a prize supplement, in fact his so-called "long odds" aren't even a standard real. While some have taken Scott's offer as a cynical gesture one could by that logic say the same of the Clay Institute, unless Scott limits his offer to Deolalikar which would then be quite a different matter.) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Merging to P versus NP problem counts as deletion as far as I'm concerned. I'd be ok with mentioning the proof attempt in that article, if one week passes (starting from the announcement) and it hasn't been withdrawn or refuted. There is more discussion taking place at Talk:P versus NP problem. I'm not an OR-removal zealot when it comes to math articles but I think whether this proof attempt contains interesting novelties is yet to be determined. Wikipedia should certainly not go around describing such novelties until that determination has taken place. Scott's offer certainly is a bet and not a "prize supplement" since unlike the Clay Institute he has not offered the $200k to all comers, but only to this proof. It's a fairly safe assumption that he would not have directed such an offer at a purported proof by a recognized expert, or one which really wrestled with the known obstacles against P vs NP proofs, instead of handwaving them. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - (Oops, we had an edit conflict: I was adding a caveat making the same point you did about other proofs when you posted, then I hit another edit conflict with the below. Lot of traffic!) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - Goodness, third edit conflict I've run into. Anyway, not notable enough to meet requirements. Maybe once the proof is substantiated? Additionally, I'd like to point out a few things in response to Aksi's argument. Do you have sources proving notability? Regarding your second point (about the blog posts and tweets) please read WP:UNRS. Regarding your third point, please see WP:POPULARPAGE. Sorry to throw policies at you like this, but the arguments you make above are not strong enough to hold up. The first might be, if you had sources to back it up. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 17:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - And in reply to Aksi's later comment regarding how it has generated "internet fervor", please see WP:EVENT. Again, a policy link, but I see no better way of making the point. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 17:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hehe. Don't worry about throwing policy pages at me. I'm kind-of a wiki-veteran. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep -- If the proof goes down in flames, then the article can be deleted, but if the proof holds up, or is basically sound with a few rough spots that can be worked around, then he's very well deserving of an article. I see no need to rush to deletion now. AnonMoos (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- give the article time to mature rather than killing it before it has time to settle down. Vinay is still trending upwards in the news so the article is likely to get more readers and contributors. See Trends. It is also (to the best of my knowledge) one of the best places to find informed opinions about the likely validity of the proof, and more likely than many other places to continue to be up-to-date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanf (talk • contribs) 18:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second that Keep, http://stats.grok.se/en/201008/Vinay_Deolalikar tells us that during just a few days there has been about 80 000 people interested in knowing more about Vinay. The proof can be whatever it is but there is an interest in knowing who this guy is, and jsut as an internet meme it could be considered worthy with such media attention. The proof is another story and it most likely will be considered false, but might in itself still not be considered null worth. Gillis (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not valid reasoning: 1) our whole approach to notability is supposedly that we write an article after notability is established, not before. WP is not Google Trends and those wanting Google Trends know where to find it. We are constantly beating back self-promotion by garage bands who claim to be "trending upwards" or "about to make it" (I'm not saying this is a self-promotion article of course). 2) The amount of press attention is irrelevant unless the proof turns out to be correct. If the proof is deemed incorrect (which I consider more likely) then the article should be deleted to avoid embarrassing the subject even if there has been considerable press attention, per WP:BLP1E. The latter is the main reason I'm supporting deletion now, if that matters. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject currently does not pass WP:PROF. Citability in GoogleScholar[32] is fairly skimpy, particularly for a computer scientist; with h-index of about 8. Nothing else of significance in the record to indicate passing WP:PROF (e.g. prestigious academic awards, journal editorships, etc). The PvsNP claim, as of this moment, certainly qualifies under WP:NOT#NEWS (and, in this case, perhaps under WP:BLP1E), and does not justify having a biographical article at this point. It may be appropriate to mention something about the purported proof in P versus NP problem in the meantime, but having a bio article now is definitely an overreach. Nsk92 (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, as stated by AnonMoos. --Petter (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep, per AnonMoos. This page is already fairly well-written, and as it continues to evolve, it will be a good landing place for people (such as myself) who are just getting into the subject over the next few days. Cue the WP:NOT pettifogging, but I say leave it for now: if the proof is wrong, we can delete the page. Angio (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You really have it backwards. We are not supposed to be crystallballing here. If the proof holds up, then a bio article about the proof's author will become acceptable and appropriate. For now it is not. As far as I can tell, most of the noise has been in the blogosphere, with a small number of sources that might pass WP:RS. WP:NOT is certainly relevant here - we are not supposed to serve as a significant venue for propagating a particular sensationalized claim. A mention of the claimed proof in P versus NP problem is as much as is appropriate now, not a bio article. Nsk92 (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is a serious researcher, but not nearly notable enough per WP:PROF, even if the current claim is taken into account (which it should not). The event on which notability purports to be based has not even reached the level where WP:BLP1E or 109 papers need to be invoked. In short, its not even close, the article needs to be deleted. Per Nsk92, notability needs to be established first -- we don't just throw up articles on the wall to see what sticks. Blowfish (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a classic WP:CRYSTAL/WP:NOTNEWS case. Nsk92 lays it out perfectly. Again "let's keep the article until it's notable" is against the guidelines. Ryan Norton 20:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep No need to rush the delete. This proof attempt has generated a huge amount of attention. The page can document this attempt, and provide a landing spot for the curious.Bestchai (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re the "provisional keep"s: nobody is trying to "rush the delete", which means proposing speedy deletion. Under the afd process the article will stay up for a week while the afd progresses. That is not a "rush". I believe it likely that by the end of the week the proof will have been found incorrect, invalidating the "provisional keep" rationales by the time of the afd closure. Either way, the status of the proof attempt at closure time should be taken into account when closing. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The manuscript is over a hundred pages long, and relies on advanced connections between multiple areas of mathematics. I doubt that there will be a unanimous decision by the complexity community in a week's time.Bestchai (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There will not be a unanimous decision in favor of the proof in a week. There could very well be a decision against it in a week, i.e. if somebody finds a mistake on (say) page 74 that can't be repaired. That is what I see as most likely to happen. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have to bear in mind that claims of proof to the biggest problems happen periodically, even ones made by serious people. And most of these claims are wrong. In recent years, the Riemann Hypothesis has been claimed solved by Louis de Branges de Bourcia, by Xian-Jin Li, and maybe others -- serious mathematicians, but their work didn't withstand scrutiny. So this isn't a case where we should presume that the proof will be accepted, because simply going by past experience, it won't. Putting this page up doesn't do the subject any favours, either. There is a reason why the paper has been circulated quietly -- publicity is at best unhelpful. And if the proof turns out to be false, then this page will have contributed to harming the reputation of a researcher acting in good faith and who was trying to quietly get his work reviewed. Under BLP we aren't supposed to invade this person's privacy until there is a good reason to do so, and right now there certainly isn't. Blowfish (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is a comment I disagree more with on this page, then it is this one. Of course wrong claims are made again and again. But how many times does one claim gain fame and excitement (and initial respect) as much as this one has? And I don't know what point you tried to make by citing Xian-Jin Li and Louis de Branges de Bourcia as both of them have wikipedia articles! And at least in Xian-Jin Li's case, the incorrect proof is a quarter of the article. And bringing BLP into the debate is quite silly. I do not see how a mention of the proof which has been called a serious attempt by Lipton and Cook would end up harming his reputation as a researcher. Aksi_great (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I'm not surprised you disagree. Basically by creating this article, you have most likely done this man harm. It's natural for you not to want to admit this. There's a good chance (just going by history) that this proof is going to fail, and if the mistake is a simple oversight (which can happen even to the best researchers in far shorter papers), Deolalikar could well end up with egg on his face. Unlike some other researchers who have made big mistakes that end up in the press somehow and who can presumably find comfort in established reputations and long publication records (besides de Branges, Martin Dunwoody comes to mind), this will be hanging over his head for a long time. I know if I were him, I would be pretty upset with you. As Blowfish says, publicity is something that is not helpful to the peer review process. The greater the publicity and thus the greater a target Deolalikar becomes, the greater the risk that people are going to go out of their way to bash him. If it turns out to be an elementary mistake, then it's not going to be the usual "hey, you made this mistake. But nice try!"...it's going to be something like "hey everyone, look at this guy...doesn't he even understand the basics of [elementary topic]??" Things can easily turn ugly. You say that the amount of attention this has gathered somehow trumps any BLP concerns...well, that's exactly why the BLP policy was implemented: to trump this kind of recentism publicity. Note that we don't have an article on Brian Peppers, despite the tons of people that claimed somehow the publicity and people's right to know somehow trumped concerns of harm to the subject. --69.86.106.215 (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's customary when circulating a draft to label it as such on the draft itself, typically with the addition of "Please do not circulate further." Had Deolaliker done so it would be reasonable to view Baker as some sort of wikileaker. However the paper was circulated as a complete and polished paper with no restrictions on its further circulation. By omitting this elementary precaution Deolaliker has effectively invited comment from all, which is what he's now getting. If this was not what he wanted then the omission was in hindsight most unfortunate. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll agree that Deolalikar should have worked harder to prevent release. Nevertheless, he claims on his personal page that the paper was put on the web without his knowledge. Blowfish (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I couldn't find that claim, what's his exact wording of it? Since he put the paper on the web himself (unless his admin did it without his knowledge) that would be an odd thing to say. You--or he--may have meant something to the effect that he didn't authorize Baker or anyone else to publicize its existence or circulate copies of it. The copies circulating outside HP are now out of date which is also unfortunate. Moral: always stamp drafts not intended for circulation as such. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yup, he's now removed any mention of the P=NP paper at all. Feel free to disregard, accordingly. For the record, however, I believe that the sequence of events was this: Deolalikar sends paper to experts; experts forward paper to friends, since there is at least some epsilon chance that its for reals; Baker leaks it, and someone puts it on scribd; Deolalikar finds out, and decides that since jig is up, he might as well put it on his own website, where at least he can make clear which version is current. (BTW, I found one comment here that affirms that Deolalikar claimed that someone else leaked it to the web before him.) Blowfish (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for the accolade, it's heartwarming. I'm not really sure that there's any fame and excitement surrounding this claim just yet, but if you want to compare it to previous attempts, you'll note that Li's Riemann claim was slash-dotted as well (it's really not that high a bar to clear) and de Bourcia's claim was reported by the BBC. Your next argument is WP:OTHERSTUFF; and for the record, Li's page almost certainly shouldn't be there. As for the matter of reputation, it may be unfair, but if the claim doesn't hold up then there is some harm to reputation. There's no reason to compound matters by prematurely splattering this man's name on wikipedia, and yes it's exactly that reason that we have BLP, which this article violates in several places. Blowfish (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    - Can you point out the many violations of BLP for me? Except for the one-event part and I claim that the event has been big enough to warrant an article. As far as the "prematurely splattering" allegation goes, it was not on Wikipedia that it first happened. His name was "splattered" all over internet yesterday, and Wikipedia being a major reference source obviously has an article from him. You make it sound as if Wikipedia got the article first and now is on some mission to tarnish Vinay's reputation. - Aksi_great (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can you read WP:PROF? That's the most relevant section for an academic such as this subject, and it makes it quite clear why a page isn't appropriate. I would cite WP:BLP1E] or WP:109PAPERS, except that so far, this is a non-event that hasn't even been in one paper of record. That's what I mean when I say that this fails BLP -- it fails spectacularly, and in every possible sense. Blowfish (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aksi, I actually thought of the incident with Li (though I didn't remember his name) and the Riemann hypothesis during this discussion. I hadn't noticed before that Li is now the subject of a biography. I'd appreciate it if you (or someone else) could open an AfD for Li's biography and I will support its deletion. I do believe that de Branges' purported proof of RH has indeed harmed his reputation, as did some other mistaken proofs that he announced earlier in his career. That is described in the biography of him. The de Branges biography is problematic in many ways, though probably not harming him much, since he's been around for a long time and is apparently something of an attention seeker, unlike Deolalikar (so far) or Li. I've heard that when de Branges proof of the Bieberbach conjecture was finally accepted, a number of mathematicians were actually angry--they expected it to be wrong because earlier claimed results of his had been wrong. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is there something stopping you from making a username and doing it yourself? You seem to be either well-worsed in wiki policies or a fast learner. - Aksi_great (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've put a note on the Li talk page, suggesting deletion. If there isn't a good argument against deletion, I'll open an AfD. Blowfish (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks, I replied there. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Some people just don't want to make an account, which is actually respectable in a way given the current environment is bit hostile to them. I must say I commend these IPs in this debate so far; debate with real substance is always nice to see. And WOW edit conflicts galore, great stuff. Ryan Norton 00:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ My vote is assuming that the information located at [33] is correct. It states that: "confirmations [of the P != NP proof] began arriving 8th August early morning" from "several leading researchers in various areas". If the proof has indeed been confirmed by several leading researchers (and those researchers can be identified), this article should stay. fintler (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fintler, the proof hasn't been confirmed (validated) by anyone. I think the "confirmation" that you cite just means people wrote back saying "I got your paper and will look at it". Several people have found apparent problems in the proof (see commenters in Lipton's and Aaronson's blogs) though nobody yet has come out and said it's wrong. It's really impossible to validate a complex proof like this in just one day. The Clay prize has a two year waiting period. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, if that's the case then I retract my keep and vote No Opinion. I'm solely basing my choice on the wording from that link. It makes sense that confirmation doesn't mean validation, especially since it's 102 pages long. fintler (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I propose leaving the article up for one month and re-evaluating it then. It isn't as though we don't have the space for it, and it is a well documented current event -- in any case, even if the proof is disproved, the attempt may be newsworthy enough for an article. It would be exceedingly bureaucratic of us to delete this page before the end of one month to let the news and evaluations play out, and god knows there's certainly enough obstructive bureaucracy around here as is. The article was created in good faith on a broadly discussed person and topic, an article will be valid upon acceptance of the proof, an article on the proof's author may be valid even if the proof is rejected depending on circumstances, and no harm is done leaving the article up on "probation" until events play out. TeamZissou (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.... if it's newsworthy enough for an article, we'll get clearly noteworthy secondary sources. So far we don't have that. That the article was written in good faith is irrelevant; that's necessary, but not sufficient, to keep. JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not proven, and even the kerfuffle over whether it's a valid proof hasn't yet proven notable. No noteworthy sources have covered this yet. _If_ it is accepted by the mathematics community, even then, coverage should be in the P!=P article. JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "_If_ it is accepted by the mathematics community, even then, coverage should be in the P!=P article". You're joking, right? - Aksi_great (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple reliable third party sources about him and his purported proof. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Regardless of whether this result is accepted, I think the prior results are of minor significance. I don't really have a high bar for how important a researcher's work has to be for them to have a biographical article, and I don't believe we have notability guidelines for this. In any case the section on his P != NP result needs to be trimmed, as right now the article is serving as nothing but a WP:COATRACK for this result. I would say it deserves no more than one paragraph, in light of the extensive press coverage. Dcoetzee 02:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are guidelines: WP:PROF, and the bar is fairly high. Deolalikar, I submit, does not clear it -- no shame on him, he is a reputable researcher, but not to the extent that would establish notability. Blowfish (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient notability at present. If the proof is accepted by the scientific community that will change. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - I found this webpage (the article, not the discussion webpage) quite interesting. Thanks to the guys who wrote it. Once again, Wikipedia was the best place to get the best informations. That's too bad that some people want to delete this webpage. As a mathematician, I know it happens quite often that some preprints have some flaws (and sometimes, some flaws which are impossible to correct), there is nothing infamous about this. Errors are a part of evolutions of ideas, and there is not a single famous scientist who did no mistake (and even published/refereed mistakes !). It would be strange to make some censure on this article just because some ayatollah here think the author could be ashamed of such an "advertising". The preprint is publicly available on Deolalikar's webpage , and indeed contains interesting ideas (I'm not expert in complexity classes, so I wont be a good referee for this article but the whole approach really makes sense). And it is good that some people can join their effort in this wikipedia page to say more about the author and the proof, EVEN if the proof is not working finally. Just compare with physics, where you'll find hundreds of wrong/incomplete theories (with a wikipedia webpage on it). Unfortunately, it is more seldom to communicate on flaws in mathematics, but that's sad, because it contributes to spread the idea that mathematics are good/correct from A to Z, which is totally wrong. From a history of science point of view, from a mathematical ideas point of view, for a better understanding of computer science in progress, all such webpages are USEFUL. For sure, we'll know more in few days, but this does not make the article, as it is today, less interesting. I hope that more and more people could bring some precision/links, allowing any student to understand the approach, the challenge, etc. We all prefer to have good information in an usual location (wikipedia) rather than spending hours in reading blogs because some ayatollah decided not to let this information on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.224.52.136 (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The person will be notable even if proof is shown to be incorrect. No proposed proof for this problem has generated such interest, and so quickly, from famous people in the relevant fields so far. Those who suggest quick deletion only show their ignorance and misunderstanding of what is important. A solution to such important problem can be very interesting scientifically, with a new interesting approach and new interesting techniques, even if incorrect. All those with a quick finger on the delete button: Please be patient! Meanwhile this article can provide updated reliable status on this solution to many avid Wikipedia users (like me) as the other Wikipedia articles do! 207.180.160.126 (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The preceding 2 votes/points have been copied by me from the talk page of the article where they were mistakenly left. It was my decision to write the word keep in front of their messages as that is what they were obviously trying to tell. - Aksi_great (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple voting is not allowed. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Did you even care to read what I have written? These are not my 'votes'. I merely copied them over from the talk page of the article because the anons had left the comments there instead of here where they belong. Am reverting your deletion of the votes. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since AfDs are not votes anyway, I don't see how you are justified in deleting commentary, though I personally do not support or oppose said commentary. — flamingspinach | (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, not a vote and those comments don't give any arguments that have any bearing on establishing notability, so they are likely to be ignored anyway. --Crusio (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to be an article about the proof attempt, rather than about the individual. This person doesn't seem to be notable enough to merit a biography due to WP:BLP concerns, but the proof itself may deserve an article. Oren0 (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Obvious delete~~Merge and redirect to P-NP. I don't envy the admin who'll have to wade through all this and weed out all the non-pertinent arguments (both pro and con) that have nothing to do with the question of notability. The only event that for the moment is asserted to establish notability is the informal circulation of a mathematical proof. It may have generated "thousands of tweets" (really, the epitome of ephemeral noise), but despite the best efforts of many participants to the discussion here, the whole article is still sourced to blogs and such and the only WP:RS deal with side issues. I am also surprised to see how many editors (from both sides) that hardly ever have participated in academics AfDs are suddenly coming here, as well as the number of anonymous IPs that, despite minimal edit histories, seem to know AfD and its arcane procedures and arguments quite well. In any case, the regulars of these kind of discussions (Xxanthippe, Nsk92, and others) have it completely right. There is absolutely no notability here and there is currently no way to predict whether the proof is going to be correct or not. This article violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL and does not meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO or any other guideline under WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe merge. The effort is notable, the paper is interesting, the page looks fine. I'd wait to see how this turns out before wiping out a page that then needs to be rewritten. I can't see how the page could in any way be an "embarassment to the subject" (original rfd reason). --Sigmundur (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question In what way is this effort notable? In the WP sense, notability is well-defined. --Crusio (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And merge. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. This seems to be an up-and-coming researcher, but an attempt at solving an important problem is not enough to establish notability. The subject's most widely cited article has only 39 citations, total citations add up to 175 (with probably some false positives), and the h-index is a low 8.--Eric Yurken (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge into P_versus_NP_problem and Redirect. Let's say it turns out the proof is correct. In that case, he'll certainly be worthy of an article about him. And there will be plenty of time to write it at that time. So what that the article doesn't get written for another few weeks or months? We are an encyclopedia. We are not a newspaper. We are not the TV news. Getting there first doesn't matter. Getting it right does. This is a classic case of WP:RECENT -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most likely the proof will turn out to be flawed. If it does then a few days or week of blog coverage will not b4 enough to establish notability. And his previous research does not establish notability on its own. MathHisSci (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I agree that this article is currently highly dubious for WP:BIO notability, mainstream press articles are beginning to appear. For example, a New Scientist story was published today. I would be surprised if there was not enough coverage within the next couple of days to gain notability. Yes, this is a crystal ball argument, but is there really any harm waiting a few days? Adacore (t·c) 16:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also PC World, NDTV India (one of the biggest news channels of India) and AOL News - Aksi_great (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deolalikar appears to have removed the paper (revised version) and its description from his web site.[34] The pdf link to the old version still works, maybe by accident. I haven't heard anything yet about whether he is withdrawing the claim, putting up a new version, or what. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which could mean either that the proof is unfixable, as some have alleged, or that Deolalikar is working quietly to fix it. What is clear, is that he doesn't want this publicity right now. Blowfish (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - From what can you conclude that he doesn't want publicity? Unless you've talked to him. And even if he doesn't, the cat is out of the bag right now. He's already got a lot of publicity, and a Wikipedia article makes no difference. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - When his webpage did contain mention of the paper, he said it had been leaked to the web without his knowledge. Now any mention of it is gone. As for the cat being out of the bag, despite what twitter users may think, there really has been very little coverage of this whole story. It's still a non-event. Blowfish (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Re Aksi: "And even if he doesn't, the cat is out of the bag right now. He's already got a lot of publicity, and a Wikipedia article makes no difference"-- sorry, but that is the precise description of a BLP1E situation. It says "delete". As for whether Deolalikar wants publicity: people outside of publicity-seeking professions (like media or politics) should generally be presumed to not want publicity. So absent info to the contrary we should treat this biography as unwanted by the subject. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm getting tired of you quoting BLP1E all over the place. Now this is from BLP1E - "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate.". Is the event significant? Yes. With you latest comment even you seem to agree with that now. Is Vinay's role in it substantial? Yes. There is no doubting that. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If the proof is recognized as correct and the guy gets the $1 million Clay prize, that would be a significant event under BLP1E and also establish personal notability per WP:PROF. An unsuccessful proof is not significant even if it gets press mentions. Significant is a much higher standard than "notable". Even if significance is established (e.g. the failed proof has good ideas that influence other people's work) that by itself still doesn't establish the personal notability necessary for a biography, which needs separate documentation (WP:BIO, WP:PROF). We'd instead write about the influence in the relevant math articles. FWIW, the P=NP article links to a page by Gerhard Woeginger listing dozens of unsuccessful P vs NP proofs, most of them not even notable. Really, you're on the wrong track: WP should be writing fewer biographies of living people, not more. Do you mind if I ask if you know Deolalikar? If you do, it would be good if you could ask him what he thinks of all this. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He seems trivially notable under WP:BIO. There are multiple traditional news articles, as has been pointed out, and even if the proof is flawed it is generally acknowledged that much of the work in it is good and will contribute to other results in the field. (For one example of this see issue #4 here. Personman (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no biographical news articles or profiles as far as I can tell. There are a few random press mentions of the proposed P/NP proof. I do begin to believe that the proposed proof has become notable enough to warrant mention in Wikipedia (in the P/NP article, say), but that by itself doesn't justify writing a biography of the author. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From BLP1E - "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate." Which part of this statement do you think does not apply here? - Aksi_great (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It applies in full, including the words if and may. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The event will have no lasting significance unless the proof holds up. Not only are you missapplying BLP1e, you're ignoring WP:RECENT. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a news service. Blowfish (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not I but you who is ignoring what is written in WP:RECENT. Let me see if I can educate you.

Firstly, "Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well — up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer."
Also, "A news spike is a sudden mass interest in any current event, whereupon Wikipedians create and update articles on it, even if some readers later feel that the topic was not historically significant in any way. The result might be a well-written and well-documented neutral-point-of-view article on a topic that might hardly be remembered a month later (see Jennifer Wilbanks and the article's deletion debate). Still, these articles are valuable for future historical research."
"But in many cases, such content is a valuable preliminary stage in presenting information. Any encyclopedia goes through rough drafts; new Wikipedia articles are immediately published in what might be considered draft form: They can be — and are — improved in real time"
"Collaborative editing on Wikipedia has resulted in a massive encyclopedia of comprehensive and well-balanced articles on the many current events of the mid-to-late 2000s. This record will be valuable to those in the future who seek to understand the history of this time period"
"What might seem at the time to be an excessive amount of information on recent topics actually serve the purpose of drawing in new readers — and among them, potential new Wikipedians"

All these things are applicable in the current case. In face WP:RECENT says exactly why we should keep this article instead of deleting it. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to comment on why you cherry picked statements out of the guideline to make it seem like the policy is an uncritical endorsement of all and any recent event coverage? The most relevant part is the ten year test: "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?" And unless the proof holds up, or contributes to another proof, the answer is no. Hence your creation of the page was far far premature. Blowfish (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I pointed out the statements because you keep on saying WP:RECENT as if the essay (it is not even a guideline or a policy) is as uncritical endorsement of not including all and any recent event coverage. As for the 10 year test, see my comment below. - Aksi_great (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More mentions of the proof - Livemint(another popular news network in India) and Nature. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all these sources say nearly the same thing (to the point of mind-numbing-ness) - here's someone who might have solved XXX problem and be eligable for a 1mil reward, then the usual copy-paste background. It seems like a classic case of WP:109PAPERS, in particular the last paragraph. Ryan Norton 20:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, the Nature article isn't just another rehash of various blog posts -- they actually talked to Lipton (but failed to reach Deolalikar). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.170.7 (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why you shouldn't link them from Vinay's article. See, the issue is this - we can all quote Wikipedia's million WP: abbreviations and prove our own points, like I just did with WP:RECENT in my previous comment. In the end, even if this is a recent event, it does not make it any less significant. Wikipedia is not a news organization but it is our job to have encyclopedic entries on significant events and people. And this is a significant event, probably the most significant event in recent times when it comes to solving the P=NP problem, even if it may turn out to be a wrong proof. What makes me say this? - blog posts by the most notable computer scientists, news articles and also the surge in activity on pages related to this event. Whether it will be historically significant? 100 years from now? I don't know. But as WP:RECENT says, this is one of the beautiful things about Wikipedia = "This record will be valuable to those in the future who seek to understand the history of this time period". - Aksi_great (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This `historical record' argument is getting silly. It's only something you can look to if the even is of clear significance -- think hurricane Katrina. A thousand twitter updates do not make this even close to being significant. Even if there were wide-spread coverage in major news sources, which there is not, you would still have some hurdles to clear to demonstrate significance, per 109Papers. As it is, NDTV seems like pretty much the only relevant major news report. Why don't you take the advice in WP:RECENT and use wikinews, which is intended for this sort of thing (or would be if this even really were all that significant). Blowfish (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic we wouldn't be keeping articles for all the other tropical storms and cyclones around the world. They will definitely not be historically significant as you put it. But think about someone who is researching the history of P=NP proofs. Would this then not be historically significant in that context? Is this P=NP proof not the one that has received the most news coverage? The only way out of this argument I can see is to create an article on all notable P=NP proofs and then merge all information from this article to a section on that article. But right now there is no article like that and there is not even consensus about having a section on notable proofs on the P=NP talk page. - Aksi_great (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that only makes sense if we can demonstrate that there's something notable in the history of P=NP proof attempts. I think the best summary of the status of the P=NP problem was provided by Lance Fortnow, with the comment "Still open." Until that changes, the historiography of the P=NP problem is a niche within a niche within a niche. And though I applaud anyone with esoteric interests, since I myself have my own, I don't think that the history of P=NP problem attempts is significant enough to be an article here. As to the status of a biography page for Deolalikar, he hasn't published enough papers with impact to qualify for a bio yet. Anything else is crystal balling. Blowfish (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, why would the history of attempts to solve a Clay Math problem be not important enough to have a Wikipedia article? - Aksi_great (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main resource for the history of failed P vs NP proof attempts is Woeginger's page[35] and our P vs NP article already links to it. As for historiography of the problem, Sipser and Fortnow have written excellent survey articles that we also link to, again primarily about the development of the mathematical ideas, which is the important stuff. I simply don't understand Aksi_great's obsession with the idea that we should be writing a biography of one particular author of such a proof (assuming it fails). Mathematics is about ideas, not about personalities. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Woeginger has a page or not does not make any difference to me. That is why Wikipedia is not a linkfarm but a collection of articles. If someone comes to Wikipedia for a history of notable proofs, he expects to find an article not a link to some external website which may disappear any day. Also, Mathematics may be about ideas, but this is Wikipedia not Mathematics. And as far as obsession goes, I could say the same about obsession not to cover this event on Wikipedia. It almost seems as if you have some vested interest against covering it. As I have already said, BLP1E does say that if the event is notable and a person plays an important role, then it is ok to have a biography page on that person. - Aksi_great (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to question anyone's motives. I'm convinced that all of the people in the comments above are acting in good faith, though obviously I disagree strenuously with some of them. Regarding notable proofs, I really don't think there have been any. There have been some notable steps toward discovering what wont work, relativization, etc. But no purported proofs have met a category that could be considered noteworthy. Absent a confirmed proof, all we have is the impact of Deolalikar's publications, which isn't nearly at a level yet where he can be considered noteowrthy enough for a bio. Blowfish (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To put it another way; in this case apparently this subject is only notable for this one proof that is decribed over and over and over and over again in sources as "a proposal that might be the solution to" or similar. There is very little coverage about what the subject (carefully worded to not damage the subject's reputation) did besides this; most of the actual information itself is already in another article, and outside of that this would basically be a bio of an otherwise ordinary subject. If the subject's thesis proves correct the subject might be a great note in history, but right now it is in the "proposal" stage - at least that is my extraction from the arguments here and the article. Really this debate should focus more on the subject and less on the proof, as at best it usually only means the proof should be the article. I could be missing something though, but that is what it looks like to me. (Sidenote: this is an epic debate in many ways) Ryan Norton 22:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your points. But the context is also quite important. Very seldom do proofs of anything science generate this much interest. And because this has I feel Wikipedia should document it. It is clear that many don't feel the same and I do respect and understand their points too. This is a weird analogy, but I see as much reason to keep this article as I do for the Double Rainbow (viral video) Wikipedia page. I agree that I may have been slightly hasty in creating this article. I haven't edited Wikipedia in many years and this is the only thing that has gotten me excited enough to edit Wikipedia. I am an inclusionist. If we can have articles on every road of a country, every vice-chancellor of every university in the world, then why not a bio about a person who has created the most interest in computer science in recent times? - Aksi_great (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone is an inclusionist. The inclusionist/non-inclusionist divide is as old as Wikipedia and you are not going to make it vanish in any particular deletion discussion. It is also only logical that you cannot expect to persuade non-inclusionists by appeals to inclusionism. Wikipedia in general might be heading more towards inclusionism in topics like roads and counties, but it is heading away from inclusionism in biographies of living people. BLP1E is in some sense a formal rejection of inclusionism in a particular class of BLP articles, of which this article is a member, so you are swimming against the tide. I'm still confused by one thing. Even if I accept your argument that this proof is worth documenting, why document it with a biography? Biographies of living people are a tremendous source of trouble in Wikipedia, and in my opinion we have way too many of them. It's much better to document math proofs in math articles, not in biographies. Yes we should also get rid of the viral video articles but that discussion gets completely adrift of the AfD topic. You can leave me a talk message about it if you want. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to make the debate vanish nor do I expect to persuade anyone. That debate is one of those important pillars that has kept Wikipedia afloat. I was just pointing out where I stand, mostly in reply to your point about why I seem to be 'obsessed' about this biography. But I disagree that I am swimming against the tide. Plenty of people have supported keeping the article on this page. Just because they are not debating doesn't mean they agree with your perspective of the tides direction of flow. I've already mentioned my point about the need to have this biography. He has done something quite notable, and only in a biography can we find more information about him like when he was born, where he got his education, what was his PhD thesis on, etc. Surely those points are not going to be included in a discussion on the history of the proofs on P=NP. - Aksi_great (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, just to make it clear where I stand - I think it is more important to document this proof/event in an article than to have an article on Vinay Deolalikar. If we don't then much interesting information will be lost from Wikipedia - like the leaking of the proof to scribd, subsequent blog post, admiration of the proof from Lipton and Cook, Anderson's 250k bet, the crowdsourcing efforts on Polymath, subsequent coverage by mainstream news organizations, and now the disappearance of the proof from his website - Aksi_great (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not wikipedia's job to preserve interesting information. We're not a blog. We're an encyclopedia. It's our job to preserve important information. Let somebody else chronicle the day-to-day minutia. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The polymath wiki[36] has a pretty exhaustive collection of all that material and we should probably link to it. It includes stuff that we can't put in WP directly because of verifiability requirements. Keep in mind that what you're expressing interest in is primarily a social internet phenomenon. I linked elsewhere to a description of a "mini-conference" held to look at a different incorrect P vs NP proof in the pre-internet 1990's, because of a similar level of excitement about that proof (until the error was found). Things haven't really changed, except for the technology. I somewhat sympathize with the desire to retain interesting math stuff but that doesn't work for more contentious topics like politics, which WP also has a lot of. That's one reason I'm not an inclusionist in general. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has retracted the ill fated proof. If he fixes it, the page can be added later, but so far, this in not a notable person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.144.238 (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some formal statement somewhere that the proof has been retracted? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lipton asked the same thing in his blog comments. I'd expect if there were an emailed statement, Lipton would have received it, so my guess is there hasn't currently been a formal statement. The most recent version of the paper is from 8:21pm yesterday (not sure what time zone, I'm guessing western US). 75.62.4.94 (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep It is not clear at this point that the proof is flawed beyond reasonable hope (see for a similar example how there was initially a serious whole in Andrew Wiles proof), and even if the proof fails it is clear that Deolalikar's techniques are likely to be very useful and open a lot of new avenues of research which means that he arguably meets WP:ACADEMIC and certainly will meet it very soon. Certainly, deleting this now when it isn't at all clear whether the proof is good or not is not helpful. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The words "and certainly will meet it very soon" are an exact marker of a WP:CRYSTALBALL rationale. Again with no disrespect intended towards the subject, I'll believe it when I see it. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not the same situation at all. It is not a CRYSTAL situation when you have subject matter experts saying that the proof is introducing new techniques that are going to matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you are overstating what the experts are predicting and you also have to consider the context. This poor sod has just done a ton of incredibly hard work that is in the process of being shot down. Yes of course it's worth seeing if some of the ideas can be re-used, and the experts are understandably mentioning that possibility, but it's way too early to tell (crystal ball) how it will actually play out. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete There will be plenty of time to write a proper article on the man after his proof has been vetted by a team of qualified peer reviewers. Until then, any notability is due to current media--actually, blog--speculation. Come on, this is Wikipedia, not Wikileaks. John Ralston Galt (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This work has been covered now by Nature, New Scientist and even non-science news sources. The idea that this is due to just "blog speculation" is inaccurate. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think in this case the bloggers are more reliable than the news outlets, but that's besides the point. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing on this page to establish notability. The P vs. NP claim is certainly not sufficient. Gsbsmith (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2010 (EST)

Comment: In addition to Nature and New Scientist, Forbes also now has covered this. (not even counting several Indian media) The point is, is this enough not to be counted as 109 coverage? Also, what's the policy for pages with high viewer traffic? (the usual pageview tool has some problem, so I don't have numbers) SPat ^talk 04:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the problem is that it is pretty much established the subject is a mostly ordinary subject in the field outside of it this (despite the early keep opinion which was shot down pretty well), and that nearly all these news reports refer to him on the side and focus on the problem instead and the ones that do use a ton of qualifiers like "may, might, allegedly" etc. - precisely because it hasn't been proven yet. Ryan Norton 14:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iron-clad keep as a major 21st century hoax. Tkuvho (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He makes Marvin Hewitt look like an amateur. Tkuvho (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think it is/was a hoax? Unlike Hewitt, Deolalikar is a bona fide academic and from what I could tell, the paper is/was a genuine attempt to solve the PvsNP problem, even if the proof turns out to be incorrect or is (has been?) withdrawn. Nsk92 (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps publicity stunt would have been a better word. The haste with which this has been circulated and the numerous "corrected" versions introduced since should dispel once and for all any analogies with Perelman's single arxiv posts. Tkuvho (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changlin Wan's "proof" was a single arxiv post. And let's remember that D. made a limited circulation of this paper, during which someone leaked it. This doesn't scream "hoax" -- of course, that doesn't mean it is correct. 74.143.20.114 (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a hoax. Just mistaken. Please do not throw that kind of accusation around. --99.245.206.188 (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let me repeat what I said before. The most relevant consideration here is the WP:NOT policy, particularly its WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:CRYSTAL parts. Note by the way that WP:109PAPERS (which is more relevant here since it expounds on WP:NOT#NEWS) and WP:RECENT (which is less relevant) are just essays, not even guidelines, whereas WP:NOT is a core policy. The fact that there is a short immediate burst of coverage, even by reliable sources, is still very much under the WP:NOT#NEWS rubric. If the proof does not hold up, it will become no more than a minor historical footnote. If the proof does hold up, the author will become a famous mathematician and a bio article will become appropriate then. Right now we are not in any position to know and it will be a while before the dust settles. If the proof is correct, it will likely take months before a consensus regarding the proof's validity emerges among the experts - this is what happened, for example, with Perelman's proof. There are also many examples of purported proofs of important conjectures where it took months to discover a flaw/gap/mistake. Once again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. For my money this means that we can and should wait until the dust settles before having an encyclopedia article about the author. We are NOT in a competition with the blogosphere, twitter and the newspapers for being the first or the most up-to-date source on some current sensationalized news-story, and we should not be trying to run in front of the train here -it is never a good idea. Nsk92 (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the technicalities of wiki regulations (but I think it is unlikely that this story will become a minor footnote). On the other hand, this has generated too much interest and there are too many "keeps" here to derail this any more. This will not be the first time "human interest" derails regulations, and it is hard to come up with a sufficient motivation to fight this tooth-and-nail. Tkuvho (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I don't think I have been fighting "tooth-and-nail" here. Regarding the number of "keeps" - AfD is not a vote and the closing admin will not be simply counting votes. About the "wiki regulations" such as WP:NOT - to me they are not bureaucratic rules but rather important sets of basic philosophical principles of Wikipedia. Saying that we should ignore them for some particular "hot" newsstory is a bad idea - it sets a bad precedent and devalues those principles. About the footnote - I would also disagree with you. I remember that there has been quite a bit of short term coverage when Dunwoody announced his supposed proof of the Poincare conjecture - now that failed proof, even though it was put forward by a respected and notable mathematician, is no more than a footnote. Nsk92 (talk) 05:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nsk, I did not at all mean to imply that you are fighting "tooth-and-nail", nor that one should wantonly ignore wiki regulations (doing so would certainly create huge problems). I meant to say that in order to defeat this, one would have to do some determined fighting, for which people like you and me generally lack motivation. The probable outcome that this page is going to survive may be deplorable on policy grounds, but may just not be worth the fight given the intense interest it has generated. Tkuvho (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You write that you see WP:NOT, BLP1E, and other pleasingly-obscure hallmarks of Wikipedia insiderdom as being philosophical principles. However, the way in which you and others have rattled them off in support of your desire to delete this article has the whiff of obscurantist bureaucracy. If, indeed, there is a philosophical concern, our discussion will be better served by arguments than by legalistic citations. As it happens, I agree that we should consider the basic philosophical principles of Wikipedia, namely consensus. WP:NOT, BLP1E, and other alphabet soup notwithstanding, I believe, and I think that others do as well, that our users are better off having this page in its present and evolving form, precisely because of the unusually intense interest the topic has engendered. Angio (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are BLP1E and WP:NOT "obscure hallmarks of Wikipedia insiderdom"?? Regarding the alphabet soup - if you read my comments immediately above, and earlier on in this AfD, I did not simply throw in a bunch of acronyms but tried to explain, at some length, why the specific principles behind them are relevant to this particular situation. Nsk92 (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ill-informed keeps count for little. This is not a vote (and there has been multiple voting). WP:Policy should prevail. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The fact that that deleteion of this article is seriously in debate suggests to me that Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.119.153 (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now or at least park outside the article namespace. Notability is reached once the proof and its methods have been assessed (thoroughly) by the scientific community not before. Currently it is too much of a news ticker thing, i.e. for now it belongs to wikinews rather than here. Notability as a news media event may be another route even if the proof is not correct ("famous failed attempt"), but for that we need a widespread appearance in major mainstream media (and more than a short news note in them). So far that doesn't seem to be the case either.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Yoavd (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you want your !vote to be taken into account, you should provide a rationale. Mere opinions like this are likely to be ignored by any closing admin. --Crusio (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added ref to longish article in Daily Telegraph (UK) article - Jamieson, Alastair (2010) Computer scientist Vinay Deolalikar claims to have solved maths riddle of P vs NP. Daily Telegraph UK, 11 Aug (Msrasnw (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Trying hard to see the "longish" part but failing - it's the same news report, different paper :\. Yet another similar quote "His paper, posted online on Friday, is now being peer-reviewed by computer scientists." - i.e. nothing has happened yet and probably won't for some time. Ryan Norton 14:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Longish - Whole article of 500 words directly about the subject of our article - i.e. not just a passing mention. Sorry for my earlier lack of clarity (Msrasnw (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, it's pretty short and it is not about Deolalikar, but about the problem, with Deolalikar and his purported proof just mentioned in passing. --Crusio (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for mentioning longish - I should have just mentioned the word count - and sorry for saying the Telegraph article was about the subject of our Article - but I think the fact that our subject had his name in the headline of the article and three more times in the text is more than a passing mention. But clearly you are correct that the subject is Deolalikar's possible proof not Deolalikar alone. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep: I think we need an article on Deolalikar even if his proof falls as people will want to know the story and notabiltiy - as evident by the buzz and reporting in reliable independent sources eg The Telegraph - seems to me assured. Also I imagine that the article is in demand (do we have any guidelines on whether we should have articles on things people are looking for?) On the talk page it suggest lots are looking at - but I don't know how to verify that. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment the BBC now has an article - [Million dollar maths puzzle sparks row]. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Still short copy/paste article with the usual quote of "If this is the case, Dr Deolalikar will be the first person to have proven that". Posting a bunch of similar sources in this particular cast may not help your debate, in fact it might hurt it :\. I'm sure basically "every" news agency has reported on the fact that he might have the solution to it and that it is current being reviewed, we've established that. See WP:BLP1E. Ryan Norton 15:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Certainly for the month, probably longer. I found the article useful at clearing up some confusion about the problem at hand and about the background of this particular scientist. Given time, the article will probably get more useful. -- ke4roh (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem "given time" - there's nothing there currently besides P/NP and a small ordinary bio (which just happens to be self-sourced atm). WP:ILIKEIT too, but there's not even a guideline debate here. Speaking of which, according to his site his final paper isn't even ready yet... making it a WP:CRYSTALBALL of a WP:CRYSTALBALL... seems like this whole thing is a nascent internet phenomenon (indeed, the HP site occasionally gives overloaded errors). I'd like to be convinced otherwise of course. Ryan Norton 17:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. In any case I found the article useful. Prodego ^talk 19:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Keep as 3rd draft has been released, so it wasn't withdrawn after all. People were saying they were missing a response from Deolalikar, I guess the third draft is his response. 92.29.68.117 (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither of the last two votes is based on anything else than WP:ILIKEIT. --Crusio (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, several experts are becoming more skeptical, see Tao, Gowers. And none of this really matters in the discussion of Deolalikar's notability, though it may have bearing on whether or not to include information on a page about P?=NP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blowfish (talk • contribs) 20:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:PROF, with an h-score of only 8. A not-yet-peer-reviewed supposed proof of P≠NP does not convey notability on the subject until it is picked up by reliable sources (in this context, academic journals, not press releases and blogs). Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since Vinay's academic accomplishments, to date (which I checked), although commendable, have not been at the level of notability that should merit a Wikipedia article; and the proof has not been verified. Obviously, if the proof is verified, he gets a nice big article. For now, it suffices that his name is listed at P versus NP problem, under "Notable attempts at proof." But I agree: if the proof is not correct, Wikipedia has already damaged his reputation, and that is sad. I suggest that a policy be developed which would prevent another similar incident. Will anyone support me on that? Vegasprof (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support you in principle but I am not sure how such a policy could be developed. The problem in this case lies with the judgement of the editors who created and advocated the BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. It doesn't matter if the proof has been verified or not. Kempe's proof of the four-color theorem was later invalidated, but he still has an article. A legitimate attempt is perhaps not as notable as an accepted proof, but it's still far more notable than a lot of the drivel that passes for articles these days. Karl Dickman ^talk 01:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that a sysop is not aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and would use that as a keep argument. --Crusio (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Kempe is not "other crap". However Blowfish and Sławomir Biały have outlined alread the differences between Kempe and Deolalikar. In other words the point here is merely that is conceivable that Deolalikar will turn into another Kempe. Note the future tense, all this argument provides is a reason for having an article on Deolalikar at sometime in the future, after he has indeed into a case like Kempe.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Kempe is not "other crap", I was referring to the argument that "it's still far more notable than a lot of the drivel that passes for articles these days". Sorry for not being clearer. --Crusio (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kempe seems to have a fair amount more to his credit than just a failed proof of the four color theorem. Someday, Deolalikar may meet the notability standard as well, but not yet. Blowfish (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Kempe was a 19th-century mathematician who has gone on to the "inaccessible cardinal", which is to say that unlike the article under discussion, Kempe's biography is not subject to BLP1E. 67.122.209.167 (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Kempe was a Fellow of the Royal Society for whom there are multiple, mutually independent, biographical sources about his life and contributions to mathematics. The subject of the present article is a midlevel researcher at Hewlett-Packard, for whom there are no biographical sources. The comparison is totally specious. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think simply reading this page provides enough evidence that this is something people care about. Hence to simply provide our NPOV we need to keep it. Dean P Foster (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is getting alot of attention and coverage in third-party press. The question of the correctness of his P v. NP paper is not the question. The question is whether this person is notable enough to have an encyclopedia entry. HE is rapidly gaining notability, and based on the volume of sources such as this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7938238/Computer-scientist-Vinay-Deolalikar-claims-to-have-solved-maths-riddle-of-P-vs-NP.html I think he is notable enough to warrant an article here. Huadpe (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can we keep this article as description of event rather than biography for now. It would be easy for all of us to agree that it is significant event because of vast media attention, attention of top researches and amount of twitter and buzz its generating. Even the amount of this discussion is enormous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.12.133 (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delay the AfD until the proof is either accepted or rejected. I think that it is too soon to AfD this article. If the proof is accepted and the article is deleted, we will need to waste time at WP:DRV. If the proof is rejected, we can AfD the article afterwards. Jesse Viviano (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) There is zero chance of the proof being accepted anytime soon. Even if the proof was 100% airtight and correct, the vetting process would take months. 2) In fact things are looking bad for the proof right now (see the polymath wiki). It will be pretty surprising if the author can turn it around. Obviously if that does happen we can revisit the situation. 67.122.209.167 (talk) (formerly 75.62.4.94) 07:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The comment by Jesse Viviano clearly demonstrates how much this is a WP:ONEEVENT. The whole proof, at this point, is a footnote in the article about the mathematical problem, at most. In any case, not necessary to go to DRV if ever the proof (several months from now) gets generally accepted. The article can be deleted without prejudice. If it gets re-created too soon, though, we'll be back here at AfD. Meanwhile, could any people coming to this vote now please read WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:ONEEVENT before !voting? --Crusio (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC) --Crusio (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless every single bit of this proof is wrong it is a very good contribution to the problem even if proven wrong in the end. This article isn't "valid proof P does not equal NP" it is changing and people want to see it, the only reason that anyone would want it deleted is that they think the article is good only based on weather there is not a single flaw in the proof. It would be ridiculous to delete something because it may or may not be 100% right, when obviously it is at least 90% with many new ideas or it would ave been disprove days ago. Zamadatix (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Zamadatix, nobody denies that this may be a valuable contribution. However, valuable does not necessary equal notable. When people write that if the proof turns out to be correct, Deolikar will be notable, they mean that if the proof is correct, so much will be written about it (and about the guy who pulled it off), that he'll be notable (in the WP sense). As it is, he's not (and the proof attempt is not). --Crusio (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep even if this turns out to be a hoax/flawed he has garnered sufficient notabilioty by his Claim. the merits of the claim are irrelevant to establishing his notability. otherwise Milli Vanilli wouldn't have an article.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you want to use page hits as an argument, [37] would be more reliable than guessing based on Google's hidden counter. It is getting 10's of thousands of hits per day which, by math standards, is huge. I'm thinking that WP:PROF isn't really applicable here, but given the coverage in Slashdot and PC World, WP:GNG is.--RDBury (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Merge to P=NP) - It is obvious this article is really about The Alleged Proof. (And, as the article now indicates, the proof is incorrect as stands, and most likely incorrect even with major fixes, though perhaps still interesting.) The article doesn't have much to say about the person, and, as the nominator notes, the person did not seek publicity. --192.75.48.150 (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly notable. BBC article as indicated by others. --Car Tick 02:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Crusio. This is news, and the focus is the paper, not the author. The paper doesn't even warrant a mention on P≟NP yet as this is a flash in the pan, and not first. yawn. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it hits a peculiar problem on WP - does WP exist to answer questions for people seeking answers about a person or topic, or should WP posit that even where people are searching for answers, that WP has a better handle on "notability"? In the case at hand, the person in this BLP is notable - being substantially in the current news (news articles on the current proposed proof) but also cited in mathematical articles [38], and author of a number of articles [39] etc. So we have prior notability in mathematics and computer science, and a current newsworthy issue. Frankly, were this a "one off" type of item, I could see deletion, but it appears to be of somewhat longer lasting notability at this point. Hoi polloi have spoken - this is sufficiently notable. Collect (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to P versus NP problem#Notable attempts at proof. --Petter (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR. More and more I'm not really buying the whole concept of notability, it was never one of the original founding tenants more something intended so that wikipedia is not flooded with articles about garage band and companies trying for some self-promotion. Notability seems to have moved away from that so something quite different. Is wikipedia better for having an article on Deolalikar, I would say yes. --Salix (talk): 13:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I love IAR. So yeah, never mind the general issue of Notability, is this particular case an improvement? We could have something in the P=NP article discussing the proof, and the fact that it was made by one Vinay Deolalikar, senior scientist and published mathematician etc. (These facts about him, after all, are largely why the proof got attention in the first place.) Do we need more personal info about Deolalikar? What do we have? Just some bits of info we got from his personal page at HP Labs. I don't expect any other reliable biographical source to exist. So, I don't see the service to our dear readers. --192.75.48.150 (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into P versus NP problem as the focus of the coverage seems to be the putative proof rather than the person. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the bio fails WP:PROF and the "scandal" is not notable enough to justify an article, the basic information about temporary press interest can be Merged to P≟NP. Fæ (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IAR Keep per Salix and Collect. It seems 85.000 people looked at this article for an answer on the question "who is Vinay Deolalikar?". This alone should be kept in mind. If our notability and bio rules make it impossible to provide a service to our readers by giving encyclopedic information on such widely requested subjects, it's our rules fault. A merge of the proof part into P versus NP problem is more than OK, but it wouldn't answer questions on who is Deolalikar. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to P versus NP problem with the understanding that this can be spun out in the unlikely event that the proof is valid or he becomes historically notable for this attempt. Them From Space 17:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re page views: 1) 85k page views != 85k people. I've probably viewed the page 100 times in the course of editing it and watching this afd. 2) person viewing page != person wants to know who Vinay D. is. They want to know what's going in with the proof, where "it turned out to be wrong" is really all they want to know. A sentence in the P vs NP article is enough for that. 3) Rationales based on page views are just another version of BLP1E or 109PAPERS. This proof attempt was a nice try but will be forgotten soon, so WP:NOTNEWS. 4) WP shouldn't be disclosing page view stats anyway, on privacy and other grounds. (Yeah I know they don't personally identify viewers, but they are creepy and invasive anyway, and can be used for nefarious purposes. There are a number of WP articles that I refuse to read online because of them). So they should never be allowed to influence editorial decisions. 67.122.209.167 (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironically, it might have been premature to propose deletion also. Had the proposal opened today instead of Monday, I bet there would be much less objection. --192.75.48.150 (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possibly true, but I can't help but wonder if some of the news coverage exists partly because the presence of a WP article convinced the reporter that the topic was worth writing about (not just with this article but many others). It's not for us to decide such things, so it's better to get the deletion ball rolling sooner rather than later. 67.122.209.167 (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't even have to wonder: before CSD G11 existed, promotional articles would barely skate past CSD barriers and get immediate coverage simply due to being on wikipedia four years ago. It made deletion patrol a bit of a nightmare and there would be countless AFDs with a lot of people not knowing how to track articles back to WP; so articles, especially on people and companies that were purely promotional but had dubious claims to fame would have to go through several AFDs and related before they finally deleted. Back to this topic, the proof is all but dead; it wasn't even the first either. It got a lot of instant coverage likely due to being leaked to slashdot and wikipedia early. In any normal circumstance, it would be a clear delete. Ryan Norton 06:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since there is a significant coverage in many independent reliable sources this passes WP:N. A one event is certainly allowed to be kept, and if the essay makes people think that pages should be deleted, it may be time to modify it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme, BLP1E is part of WP:Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) which is not an "essay", it's (supposedly) the most rigorously enforced content policy in all of Wikipedia. Yes, WP:BLP is constantly being modified; but in general, the modifications are towards higher rather than lower levels of consideration for BLP article subjects. Your proposed modification goes in the opposite direction from the way WP practice in this area is (rightly) evolving. WP is not a tabloid and we're not here to feed voyeurism. Some people here called for a 1E exception based on a hope/expectation that the P!=NP proof would turn out to be correct or otherwise mathematically valuable, which would have been nice but didn't happen. That's a bogus rationale (the bogosity is why we have WP:CRYSTALBALL) but at least it's an attempt at supplying one. IMO, it's much more disturbing that so many are basically saying we should keep any biography we can source, without expressing any consideration at all for the person we're imposing the article on. We are supposed to have thoroughly abandoned that approach, which I see as basically a paparazzi impulse that doesn't belong here. Folks, please try to be a little bit more sensitive to this issue. 67.122.209.167 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears that the proof has fallen through [40][41][42][43]. According to Aug 13 column by Scott Aaronson in MIT Technology Review[44], "As of this writing, Vinay Deolalikar still hasn’t retracted his P≠NP claim, but a clear consensus has emerged that the proof, as it stands, is fatally flawed.". Terence Tao, who is a Fields Medal winner and a real heavyweight in the subject, basically says the same thing[45]. I think this rather negates IAR arguments urging us to wait and to ignore WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BLP1E above. The fact that there has been a short spike in coverage by coverage, lasting a few days, does not make one notable - stories like that belong on wikinews, not on wikipedia. There have been lots of incorrect claims to solve this or that famous problem - most of them are now no more than historical footnotes. It may be that at some point in the future Deolalikar (or someone else) manages to use his ideas to prove something interesting and significant. If and when that happens, a bio article about him might become appropriate, but that is not the case now. Nsk92 (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: most of them are now no more than historical footnotes: in my view wikipedia is (and should be) useful for help just such footnotes. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It may be appropriate to add a mention of Deolalikar's claim, with a few footnotes, to P versus NP problem article - but that hardly justifies having a full bio article about him at this point. Nsk92 (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It is about 99% by now, that the proof is not correct. From the moment it becomes 100% (likely when Deolalikar himself admits failure) the currently impressive viewing numbers will sharply decline and within 1-2 weeks there will be likely no more significant interest for the subject at all. In my opinion 2-3 sentences of detailing the story (Deolalikar's claim + major newspapers covered the story + review process on the internet by fellow mathematicians + proof failed) will be way enough on the P-NP page. Gruen (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Maybe notable per WP:EFFECT ? This even maybe is an example of the use of the internet to analyze proofs, an entire wiki has been set up where one can post his opinion [46]. Maybe it could be renamed to Deolalikar P vs NP paper, like the external Wiki? Abeer.ag (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:EFFECT is apparently for things set a precedent of some kind. All this is what happens when instant news reports + slashdot + wikipedia collide. That's it, and this wasn't even the first attempt, just the first attempt that got coverage because the subject had a serious lack of good judgement when deciding who to send the papers to. Also, proofs have been analyzed for quite some time on the Internet, wikis or otherwise. The rename would be a "bad" content fork of the original P/NP article, which saw fit to only put a couple of sentences of this mess in the article. Ryan Norton 18:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, thanks. WP:EFFECT is a subguideline of WP:N while WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS are policies. The lasting effect that WP:EFFECT is asking for can only be demonstrated after a significant passage of time. The newscoverage of the event has, not surprisingly, already tapered off. If there are still instances of significant and detailed coverage of this event a year or so from now, a separate article about the event (but not a biography) might become appropriate then. For now this is still in the WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS territory. A few sentences of mention of the episode in P versus NP problem is the most that is appropriate at this stage. Nsk92 (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We should probably write a standalone article about the Polymath project sometime (right now it redirects to a section of its founder's biography). That would be a good place to include something about the collaborative analysis of this proof attempt. It doesn't really belong in the P=NP article beyond a brief mention, and the Deolalikar biography is still inappropriate. 67.122.209.167 (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clearly notable scientist who has become famous in the scientific, geek and nerd communities worldwide and to some extent the general public for making an attempt at a proof of P!=NP. Outside the fact he made an attempt at the proof, the man is now famous and that satisfies WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having produced an incorrect proof of something does not make one academically notable or famous. It can result in 15 minutes of fame but that is not the same as lasting notability. As for WP:BIO, you should really look up WP:BIO1E, as well as WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Nsk92 (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A notable scientist and the article is very significant and contains many reliable sources. IainUK talk 01:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can take any news-story, that flashes over the news for a few days and then quickly disappears, and say the same thing - that there are "many reliable sources". That does not make a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article, per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Nsk92 (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he seems notable enough to me, and more importantly having this article makes for a better encyclopedia. Paul August ☎ 01:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the New York Times just published this interesting article. Paul August ☎ 01:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, NYT, being a more conservative and deliberative newspaper, is among the last to write about this story. But here is what it said at the end: "At this point the consensus is that there are large holes in the alleged proof — in fact, large enough that people do not consider the alleged proof to be a proof,” Dr. Vardi said. “I think Deolalikar got his 15 minutes of fame, but at this point the excitement has subsided and the skepticism is turning into negative conviction.” Getting "15 minutes of fame" is exactly what WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E have in mind. Nsk92 (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether he deserves it or not, there is no doubt he has generated much publicity. Even if it turned out he was not successful, I would not like to see the article deleted, because I still think we would be letting down a lot of people who will research him. IainUK talk 07:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, 15 minutes of fame does not merit his inclusion on Wikipedia. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 09:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Vinay Deolalikar P ≠ NP Proof Attempt At present, this article primarily documents the proof attempt, which is a a notable event due to coverage from the NY Times, New Scientist, etc. The article doesn't establish WP:Notability_(academics) (as currently written). I don't think that a redirect to P versus NP problem is the best solution; that article has a large scope already, and the section for "Notable proof attempts", added mainly to discuss this proof attempt, may not be sustainable there (see for instance Talk:P_versus_NP_problem#Notable_proof_attempts). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that for a few days there has been quite a bit of coverage of this story in the newsmedia still does not make it a notable event and does not yet take it out of WP:NOT#NEWS territory. In fact, if the past experience is any indication, an incorrect claim to prove something or other usually quickly fades from memory and becomes no more than a historical footnote. If there are still instances of specific and detailed coverage of this story 6-12 months from now, an article about the event may become appropriate then. Nsk92 (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - clearly, as of now, this is a WP:BLP1E because it's not about the guy but about his supposed proof of which the formal review hasn't been finished. If the proof holds, the guy deserves his own article. If it doesn't, there should be a mention, paragraph, or section in the appropriate P vs NP article, but not a separate article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wageless Economy Robotic[edit]

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

Contested prod. Pure original research. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree somewhat with the nominator - I'd call it pure drivel. No reliable references given and I couldn't find any. I think this is either a bit of fringe economic philosophy or possibly a hoax. Against the hoax are the ghits from unreliable sources seeming to be part of a publicity campaign. Whichever it is, it doesn't belong here. Peridon (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All of the references in the article reference the side information, not the information about the topic. Seems to all be coming from this website. No other verifiable sources that I see -- many of the Google results are coming up because of comments people from that website have made on legitimate articles (for example: [47]). Doesn't seem to be a hoax, per se, but definitely not notable. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 18:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Peridon: it looks like a random text generator output... Aren't there sites that turn out pseudo-academic gibberish? We have already examined the Sokal affair, thank you, no need to replicate "pure drivel" and bring in poor old Karl to prove nonexistent points. East of Borschov 20:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This intervention by the page creator is leading me to believe that the sole purpose of the article is to promote a book and a website. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone found any proof of the existence of "Sir Eric Sean Tite-Webber"? (Or even "Sir Eric Tite-Webber" or "Sir Eric Tite" or "Sir Sean Tite"?) Apart from two ghits connected with this subject, I can find nothing. There are a few ghits without the knighthood or baronetcy title 'Sir', but nothing of any import. Peridon (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure original synthesis and speculation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 policy-based arguments in this matter are entirely on one side. Courcelles 02:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Budo: The way of the warrior[edit]

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

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

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

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

non notable film WuhWuzDat 15:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTABILITY. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need to delete Budo: The way of the warrior cause is really exist, just check it the documentary link: http://vimeo.com/13405583 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanalilu (talk • contribs) 16:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Existence is not in question here, Notability is. WuhWuzDat 16:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. I don't mean to be rude, but the video is a joke to a native ja editor. Oda Mari (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources and no indication of notability. Existence isn't notability. Astudent0 (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. While it is more easily searchable under its original Italian release name of Budo la via del guerriero, it has no sourcable notability. If this changes, its return might be considered. But til then... Ciao. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chris (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete of course exist Budo: The way of the warrior, but the important is the first documentary in the world for Haiku and Budo together, that's news for WP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.82.20.255 (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC) — 151.82.20.255 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - no independent coverage, no reliable sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete you can find information looking the tv logo inside the documentary and most important searching in the web and magazine, cause nobody produced an original video like that. Bye! --Oscaf (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)— User:Oscaf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No independent sources, non-notable. Papaursa (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete it's ok, a real tv transmit that, so non sense to delete. --Sugargreen (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)— User:Sugargreen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment to the "keep" opinions: With respects.... we grant that it aired. What is required though is that the article show independent notability, in ANY language, through articles and reviews about the film. That it aired is simply not enough. Yes, it may be a unique film. But Wikipedia is not the place to "announce" it or make an unsupported claims about its "uniqueness". See WP:NOTNEWS. What we require is significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the film. If those come forward, this AFD could turn right around. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reply* let me ask you, why an original documentary like that no good for WP, while a fan film that violated the copyright is in WP like hollywood movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear_Solid:_Philanthropy ??? --Sugargreen (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can only suggest you read WP:Notability (films) and seek understanding for both cases. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to delete* is unbelieveble that a fan film non notable film is in WP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear_Solid:_Philanthropy independent notability as for my self the documentary is good. --Ramadada (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)— User:Ramadada (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The discussion here is not a vote. And read WP:ILIKEIT, as an eventual decision to keep or delete is not based upon personal opinions of "good" or "bad"... it's about coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, or meeting one of the inclusion criteria at WP:NF. Bring forth articles offering reviews or crtitical commentary and the article has a far better chance of remaining. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Following other comments above, this does not appear to be a notable subject. Janggeom (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. And replace with the real-world concept. A small mention of the fictional use may be appropriate there. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic quadrant[edit]

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

In-universe plot summary. The notion of "quadrants" has no independent notability from e.g. the settings of the DS9 and Voyager spin-offs. Cited sources substantiate solely plot summary, and do not bolster any kind of real-world, encyclopedic treatment (save for a single quote about production/writing trivia -- not nearly enough to meet GNG). --EEMIV (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated above, the subject really doesn't have any independent notability. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T Delete It is highly informative, and it is about a coined term that survived 3 TV series during 15 years. --Markps (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable topic spanning the various Star Trek franchises. Cataloging the evolution in the term throughout the 40+ year history of the fictional universe is not OR. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments: Since the article appears to be Star Trek centric, how about we retitle the article to something more Star Trek-specific. Also, worth noting that since it spans shows, there's no single good merge target. Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial, non-notable feature which has received no reliable independent coverage. --Claritas § 21:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even look? At the time of the nomination, there were four reliable independent sources in the article. I've tagged it for rescue in hopes folks can find and add more. Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not independent: they are licensed or production material, failing to show significant third-party coverage. They treat the subject in-universe and do not offer appropriate fodder for an encyclopedic treatment. The Google Books results are overwhelmingly passing references in narratives (i.e. EU novels) or in-universe "reference" material; the scant "real world" mentions are fleeting, and also fail to show significant third-party coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep trying to redefine "third party" all you want, but the fact is that licensed, production, fan fiction, or similar material are produced independently of the primary sources. Another Star Trek series is not an independent, third party reliable source, but a Star Trek encyclopedia put together and published by an editorially independent third party is a reliable source regardless of whether permission was obtained to use the franchise's intellectual property. The alternative would require a higher bar for fictional topics than news topics: current events don't need anyone's permission to be republished. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial and of no enclyopedic value. A quick search brought up no real third part interest.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inappropriate in-universe treatment of trivial fancruft. SnottyWong ^spout 17:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party coverage that would WP:verifynotability. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The galactic quadrants of Star Trek are covered in detail in numerous sources including Star Trek: the human frontier , Star Trek Reader's Reference to the Novels, Star Trek 101, Star Trek - The Americanization of Space, &c. The topic is therefore notable and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too trivial for an encyclopedia. Rory Re loaded 09:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Trek Encyclopedia has Quadrant as a separate entry on page 393. Your personal opinion is thus contradicted by objective evidence and so is just an argument to avoid. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Trek Encyclopedia is an in-universe collection of trivia and minutiae, and not in any significant way comparable to e.g. Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc. -- to say that "if it's good enough for the Star Trek Encyclopedia, it's good for The Free Encyclopedia" is a fallacy conflating two products with entirely different scopes and criteria for inclusion. In fact, the Wikipedia community has repeatedly identified subjects covered by The Star Trek Encyclopedia as inappropriate for coverage here (e.g. the ready room, observation lounge, M4, Lunaport, New Berlin, Tycho City, saucer separation, saucer section, stardrive section, autodestruct -- all of these articles deleted for lack of notability, and all of them covered in STTE). --EEMIV (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is full of "trivia and minutiae" of all sorts. Such emotional characterisations indicate a personal bias and value judgement contrary to core policy. Britannica is a general encyclopedia and is comparatively small. Wikipedia, by contrast, is enormous and its scope includes elements of general and specialized encyclopedias. The Star Trek Encyclopedia seems to be the most relevant and authoritative work which indicates the appropriate level for an encyclopedic treatment of such topics, as determined by the professional editors and publishers who produce it. That work has appeared in multiple editions and formats which demonstrates the notability of its content and its suitability for our readership. Individual topics are presumably treated on their merits and I have demonstrated coverage of this one in numerous other independent sources which confirms the notability of this particular item. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is full of all sorts of trivia and minutiae, years of cruft penned by unrepentant fanboys. All you do here is point out there is much that can and should be brought to their own AfDs. Tarc (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Disambiguation or restructure.~~ Delay close for a week. New info that changes everything: Apparently the division of the galaxy by quadrants is not an entirely trekky thing. I just did a Google book search and found hundreds of professional astronomy texts using the term galactic quadrant, though referring to them by 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rather than Alpha, Beta, etc. More importantly, a source seems to confirm that they are refering to the same system of dividing the galaxy by degrees and that it was inspired by Star Trek! Now this article has historical and independent substance. I'm going to notify WikiProject Astronomy —CodeHydro 20:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. As we decide how to incorporate the new material, I have made a sandbox version of the page, User:Codehydro/Sandbox/Galactic quadrant, as a proposed version. Anybody working on it really ought to take a look at it and make improve on the sandbox version since it is not quite ready to replace the actual article (since I've filled it with WP:OR and a bit of (educated) BS just to see how it would look. ;) Who knows, my guesses might not be far from the truth.... now where are those folk from the Astronomy Project that I called? —CodeHydro 00:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem completely nuking the current article and replacing it with the real-world concept. However, I wholly (as presented in the sandbox) the retention of the current content of "Galactic quadrant". If the notion of galactic quadrants holds water as a real-world(-galaxy?) concept, that's great -- Star Trek's treatment, however, remains trivial and does not warrant coverage here. --EEMIV (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a couple more hours of research and hammering out most of the WP:OR and educated BS, I think the sandbox version may be decent enough to replace the main article. I put a note on a main page requesting the merging of the two histories (note, I commented out the categories in the sandbox version). —CodeHydro 17:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concentrtates too much on the fictional and too little oin real world. The objection was (and remains) that the trek material is fanwank only.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. —CodeHydro 21:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Move to Galactic quadrant (Star Trek) and replace with disambiguation page - in the light of the use of the term in astronomy, it may be worth moving this article to Galactic quadrant (Star Trek) and turning Galactic quadrant into a disambiguation page. Icalanise (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite to focus more on the real-world concept. As it stands, the article is chock-a-block full of crufty fan trivia. Reyk _YO! 00:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note my sandbox version above, where I adjusted my vote to "Keep and rewrite." —CodeHydro 00:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Information: (1) I have histmerged in User:Codehydro's user-area sandbox edits; (2) re "cruft", often one man's cruft is another man's important matter, e.g. some people follow Star Trek / football / etc and some do not. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re. merge and article - I object to the history merge and re-focus on essentially a new topic mid-AfD -- this is one of the things e.g. A Nobody was chastised for. I'd like the article restored to its earlier version, allow the AfD -- comments on which have overwhelmingly focused on that subject and content -- to continue with that subject, and then allow for the creation of an article with a new focus atop it. Although this content has been created in good faith, it does not address the underlying "fanwank"*. Because the "real-world" content was created by one editor, I believe it would be just fine for that editor to copy-and-paste his content from the sandbox (or to move the sandbox's entire edit history atop the redlink to create a new article about what is essentially a new topic). (*Sidenote re. cruft: I both "follow Star Trek" and believe this content is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Just FYI. There's no hatin'.) --EEMIV (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note how in the introduction to the The "Star Trek view" section, it describes it as a perfectly valid, albeit mostly informal, way to divide the galaxy in real life. Anyhow, it's actually pretty commmon in the field of astronomy for the line between fact and fiction to be blurred; I mean, who has actually visited another star or planet first-hand? Most details in astronomy are just educated guesses based on low-resolution observations. In short, I think it's fine to keep the two quadrant systems in one page. —CodeHydro 14:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—The use of galactic quandrant in astronomy should not pertain as to whether to retain the Trekkie information. The former can be covered just as well in the GCS article. That being said, I don't buy the "trivia" arguments above; they are too much like personal bias. If the notability of the Star Trek-based content can be established, then the article should be kept.—RJH (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Referenced three more books neither affiliated with nor primarily concerned with Star Trek for material in the "Star Trek view": Universalities: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases, The science fiction and fantasy readers' advisory, and Science fiction television. If these three don't establish notability outside of fandom, then consider that Google books finds 2,710 results for the exact phrase "Alpha Quadrant," 245 for "beta quadrant," 3,030 for "delta quadrant," and 2,390 for "gamma quadrant." While I certainly don't have time to look through all of them; that is a lot of books and a good deal of them probably are not affiliated with Star Trek. —CodeHydro 23:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tut tut! Websters Quotations is a well-known Wikipedia mirror and not a source. Uncle G (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is on the concept of dividing the Galaxy into 4 parts. Clearly this is a notable concept. Star Trek should be mentioned. How much detail about it is another question. Wolfview (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real-world value or notability. Memory-Alpha is a much better host for subjects that are only of in-universe importance such as this. Tarc (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Laryngology and Voice[edit]

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

Deprodded by article creator. Prod reason remains though: Non-notable new journal, article creation premature. Does not even have an ISSN yet. Not indexed anywhere, not a single article published yet. Violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL, does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTABILITY. The journal is forthcoming, and has no reason to be in an encyclopedia. Perhaps recreate the article at a later date, when the journal has acquired notability. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. Not notable at this time. Perhaps after it has actually published some article and has some verifiable third-party sources to prove notability. Until then, I'd say delete. Too soon. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 18:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chris (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Laurence Baxter[edit]

The result was The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC). The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.[reply]

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

The result was Malformed nom. The article was speedy deleted. Rje (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigth Mare Lady![edit]

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

Olli (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 12:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Farenthold[edit]

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

Article about an election candidate. Twice speedily deleted already; deletion of the article was declined this time around on the basis that the subject is an election candidate, but WP:POLITICIAN makes it clear that this is not an indication of notablility. Wikipedia is not a place to promote political candidates. I42 (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN, although I stand by my decision to decline speedy deletion—A7 is not about notability. Rje (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only claim is an election candidate, notability is not established. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe 2010 national elections in the United States are quite notable and the interest in them spans the globe. A simple claim of being an election candidate is not worthy of encyclopedic inclusion, however reference material on the candidates who will be on the November ballot certainly must be. Wikipedia includes extensive and excellent reference resources on the House of Representatives, its districts and its members. An election to determine a new congress generates tremendous demand for information resources. Don't the winners of the national party primaries in these races rise to the level of notability?

Thank you for your patience. frisbeetx —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete The elections may well be notable - but don't kid yourself about the worldwide interest in them. I for one couldn't really care less. "however reference material on the candidates who will be on the November ballot certainly must be." - No. This isn't free webspace. It's not a place for soapboxing. If a candidate is already notable in his/her own right, OK. If not, they have to wait until they win. We'd be loaded down with failed candidate articles otherwise. Peridon (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was regarding the global media coverage which is happening now, and the research queries it can generate from an encyclopedic point of view. I would not make a case for inclusion of a failed candidate, and when they are defeated that would be a definite confirmation of a lack of notability. Candidates for high office who have qualified to be on a ballot in a United States congressional election though are not failed candidates.... not yet anyway. That is distinctly different perspective from a free web space or soapboxing. frisbeetx (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Politicians for high national office are inherently notable. It is a great public service for Wikipedia to provide neutral biographical information on active politicians. Carrite (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."" - from WP:POLITICIAN This one is a candidate, not a politician in high office. Peridon (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to an appropriate election or constituency page. WP:POLITICIAN says that is the general rule for candidates. Nothing about this candidate stands out. Re Carrite's hope for neutral biographies of all political candidates, I think that hope is forlorn in general, and certainly here ("In addition to his business career, Mr. Farenthold is known for his community and civic activities including serving as a referee for youth basketball games and teaching senior citizens how to use computers.")--Mkativerata (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Paul Evans (actor)[edit]

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

Either this article is a hoax or the actor is simply not notable. No information in this article can be verified. The series, films and directors listed do not appear to exist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both, g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Olivanders[edit]

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

Hoax. No evidence that such a program ever existed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also listing

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, as mentioned in the first comment, some mention would certainly be appropriate in a season article if one is created. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester City F.C. 4–1 Tottenham Hotspur F.C.[edit]

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

A football league match like many others, which easily fails into WP:NOTNEWS and cannot be identified as anything special in the game history. I had started a discussion on WP:FOOTY about the notability of such article before nominating it, and it quickly emerged that most of the project users agree with this game not being notable on its own (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Manchester City F.C. 4–1 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. and Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C.. Angelo (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 1967–68 Manchester City F.C. season. Yes, that's a redlink right now, but User:Falastur2 has been doing sterling work on season articles for some time, and has a sandbox page for the season in question which looks almost ready for mainspace. I've stated some reasons for the notability of this match at WikiProject talk, but a merge is my preferred option, as the match is far more notable in the context of Manchester City than of Spurs. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable match. Giant Snowman 18:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guideline. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 19:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything to grant this notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with the closing admin making explicitly clear that future cases should be considered on their own merits. This match, on its own merits, fails the GNG. I am sure that there are other matches that fall into this category that will also need to be AfD'd. However, I see the statement "like many others" as a strong indication that the nominator intends to use this as a precident. Matches that are not automatically notable (generally speaking, anything that isn't a cup final) should be considered on their own merits as to whether they pass or fail the GNG. --W F C-- 00:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy to User:Falastur2 if he wants it. Not a significantly notable match in and of itself, appropriate inclusion for a ManCity season article if one were to exist. There is no real basis for inclusion as a stand alone article as it is "just another football match" of which there have been literally millions.--ClubOranje^T 00:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. This could form part of the two clubs' season articles, but not a standalone. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but make mention of in either clubs' season article. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable game. --Carioca (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge. Obviously seems a real lack of users on here who have a real grasp of football history and knowledge with some of these, in my opinion, clueless and uninformed comments. Therefore I'm not going to bother posting an informed argument for keeping this page, as anything I do say will probably be greeted with a lazy, non-constructive response, like "non-notable match" - Stevo1000 (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can provide additional independent sources describing the game as something special, that would demonstrate notability and offset all the "non-notable match" responses. Rlendog (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm with Stevo1000 on this. This is just the sort of thing Wiki should encourage. Part of the club's history, a memorable match for the club. Shame it will soon be deleted.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is a notable match, article is referenced. Eldumpo (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is sufficiently referenced to pass the GNG (although this is a matter on which there can be legitimate disagreement: see WFCforLife above). Many of the delete !votes (not all) give little to no reasoning for their positions; as if to assert that any regular season match is undeserving of an article. Such claims to inherent notability (or in this case, non-notability) need to be viewed sceptically, especially when unsupported by reasoning. If someone wants to take the time to create articles for all top-division English matches over the last 100 years, wikipedia will be a better place for it. If only one or two well-sourced articles are created, no harm is done. If someone wants to move an amendment to WP:NSPORT to the effect that ordinary league football matches are not notable - and there may be good reason to do so - it need only be done here. But unless and until that is done, we shouldn't toss out people's hard and policy/GNG compliant work on three-word subjective opinions.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Interesting one this. Only two sources, but both seem to have been written a long time after the event, and cover it in reasonable detail. That could be enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS, which would leave this within all the guidelines. It's difficult to judge the offline source without being able to see it though, hence this is a weak keep. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Well, I think that "Match of the Season" is notable enough. It has just enough detail to be a respectable article, and is just notable enough in my opinion. However, "my opinion" isn't a very good reason, which is why this is a weak keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sellyminime (talk • contribs) 07:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - dubious notability aside, if kept, shouldn't the page be moved? That's not a title, that's a score, with no date! That'd be like having the 2003 Heritage Classic article at Montreal Canadiens 4 - 3 Edmonton Oilers. How many such games finished with that score?--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As pointed out, whilst a team coming from 3-0 down to win 4-3 is unusual - especially with ten men - it's hardly unique. As pointed out, it did have lots of coverage, but on the other hand the nature of top-flight sport in the UK (or the US for that matter) is such that this is unsurprising. And WFC is correct, this AfD (and the other similar one which I closed in the same manner) should not be taken as precedents, each article should be examined individually. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C.[edit]

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

A football league match like many others, which easily fails into WP:NOTNEWS and cannot be identified as anything special in the game history. I had started a discussion on WP:FOOTY about the notability of such article before nominating it, and it quickly emerged that most of the project users agree with this game not being notable on its own (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Manchester City F.C. 4–1 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. and Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C.. Angelo (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable match. Giant Snowman 18:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Angelo, with all due respect you started a debate on whether to remove these games, got a few responses over the course of two hours then made this AfD. If you want to base your decision on the consensus in that debate then you moved far too quickly - two hours just doesn't give time for people to respond, and true to form, the debate has now received a raft of opinions supporting keeping these articles. If you are simply proposing deletion on your own terms, then I fall back on the argument that what game is notable has not been defined properly by WP:Football and thus I would argue that their notability is set out by the fact that these are two of the more famous individual matches in English football history and they aren't even cup finals to boot. More detail on the debate page you linked above. Falastur2 ^Talk 19:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very few individual football matches are notable in and of themselves - this isn't one of them. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I have no opinion whether the game meets the GNG - it's up to Stevo1000 and Falastur2 to produce evidence of lasting notability (rather than next-day reports). But I must admit that any game when a side losing 0:3 was able to turn the tables in their favor is something special. I'd really like to keep this article. Unfortunately, our opinions on "something special" are not enough. East of Borschov 20:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's something special for the team that wins, sure, but it happens regularly and therefore isn't notable for this encyclopedia. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not too regularly, at least in the top leagues. By the same logic, hat tricks also happen regularly; would you take List of Premier League hat-tricks to AFD? East of Borschov 21:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd take an article about an individual hat-trick to AfD. As this is one individual game, that comparison bears up better :p Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Newspaper reports the day after the game aside, I can't find anything to grant this notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Angelo, with all due respect you started a debate on whether to remove these games, got a few responses over the course of two hours then made this AfD. If you want to base your decision on the consensus in that debate then you moved far too quickly - two hours just doesn't give time for people to respond, and true to form, the debate has now received a raft of opinions supporting keeping these articles. If you are simply proposing deletion on your own terms, then I fall back on the argument that what game is notable has not been defined properly by WP:Football and thus I would argue that their notability is set out by the fact that these are two of the more famous individual matches in English football history and they aren't even cup finals to boot. More detail on the debate page you linked above. Falastur2 ^Talk 19:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC) -[reply]
Keep' - Here here Falstur. Angelo not being rude, you really need to stop going round like a dictator deleting whatever he wishes willy nilly and value other user's contributions more. Having created these two match pages, the fact that the Tottenham 9-1 Wigan page is still allowed to remain, yet these two pages are up for deletion is totally wrong. Furthermore their is no official rule/line on separate match pages on Wikipedia, therefore no one has any right to delete other Wikipedia user's hard work and contributions. Their appears to be good support to keep this page, but our arguments appear to be falling on deaf eyes. Like I say, I reiterate the rightful stance, that there is no official line/rule on separate match pages, therefore this cannot possibly be deleted, unless a proper Wikipedia guideline is enforced. (Stevo1000 Talk 23:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, no-one has tried to delete this article "willy-nilly" - it was brought here for discussion and will be deleted or otherwise by community consensus. That's exactly what AfD is for. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to ask you again to please stop attacking me. This is lasting way too long, and I am increasingly getting sick and tired of it. Also, I haven't deleted anything at all (the article still lies there, and cannot be deleted by me btw), so you're just saying a big lie over there. All I did was to find the article and nominate it for deletion on the grounds described above, and I am not the only one who agrees with such opinion as you can see in this page. If you have some point to mention, please do it politely, especially without attacking other users (which is absolutely unacceptable). Regards, --Angelo (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not "attacking" you at all, just trying to make sure you understand my comments and thoughts which I feel have gone largely unheeded on your part. And finally, like you probably, I can't be bothered continuing this silly disagreement with you which is growing into a irritating inconvenience. It is clear that we both just cannot agree, and hopefully we won't cross each others' path again. Shame really as that isn't what Wikipedia is about (Stevo1000 Talk 00:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with the closing admin making explicitly clear that future cases should be considered on their own merits. This match, on its own merits, fails the GNG. I am sure that there are other matches that fall into this category that will also need to be AfD'd. However, I see the statement "like many others" as a strong indication that the nominator intends to use this as a precident. Matches that are not automatically notable (generally speaking, anything that isn't a cup final) should be considered on their own merits as to whether they pass or fail the GNG. --W F C-- 00:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or again userfy to User:Falastur2 if he wants it. Again, not a significantly notable match in and of itself, but appropriate inclusion for a ManCity season article if one were to exist. There is no real basis for inclusion as a stand alone article as it is "just another football match" of which there have been literally millions. It is not the first, nor will it be the last time a team has come from behind.--ClubOranje^T 00:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I'm going to copy-paste this article to my userspace "for safe keeping", but I remain to be convinced that this match is non-notable, nor do I concede the point. In my eyes, the very comment "The greatest comeback ever?" - which is the article title for a cited BBC link in the article in question - should tell the whole story of why this match is notable. Falastur2 ^Talk 00:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this match is notable, then literally hundreds of thousands of similar matches are notable. This could form part of the two clubs' season articles, but not a standalone. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've seen plenty of other similar comebacks in the early stages of the FA Cup. Nothing special about a team being 3-0 down winning 4-3. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the match has not received coverage other than routine reports in the days following the game. No indication that the match is notable enough for its own article. Big Dom 14:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable game. --Carioca (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the proof that this match is notable beyond the norm is in the first two references cited in the article. Just a glance at them shows it. --Dweller (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coming from being behind 3-0 in an away fixture to win 3-4 is not exactly an everyday occurrence, but I would agree with many people here that such an achievement in association football may still have happened enough other times so as to be not particularly notable, or notable enough. However, that, by itself, is not why this game is considered notable. It is considered to be notable because of a criterion that most people here are completely overlooking in jumping to their conclusions (or alternatively, in exercising their own biased agendas). The missing criterion is that the team coming from behind did so with only ten men. Exactly how many times has THAT happened before?

I challenge anyone who has posted on this page to vote to have this article deleted to cite some verifiably reliable references in order to prove your case. If someone can post here a number of such references to other top flight football games where the comeback team was

(1) at a numerical man disadvantage, in addition to

(2) an away venue disadvantage, and

(3) a three or more goal score deficit disadvantage

then I will vote along with you to have this article deleted. I'll leave it to others to decide how many such references are sufficient to prove your case. ITMT, I vote that this article remain in place because I personally cannot think of any other cases - and it is exactly that lack of other cases that would make this game particularly notable.

Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 04:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resp: 3 trivial intersections don't make it notable. I could come up with 3 equally trivial points to make almost any match notable under those guidelines. Motherwell coming back from 6-2 to draw where the comeback team a) missed a penalty, b) had a New Zealander playing for them, c) there was a full moon.

As for how many times the team coming from behind did so with only ten men Probably dozens if you look world wide, but for something closer to home try 1957, Charlton, Hudderfield, Charlton played 70 minutes with only 10 men, 5-1 down with 20 minutes to go, won 7-6.

A gsearch for "greatest comeback ever" produces millions of results. All 100% POV. For every one that thinks this game was it, there are a hundred other pundits that don't. Its trivial POV fancruft and belongs in a fanblog, not an encyclopedia. If it is Man City's biggest claim to fame by all means mention it in a season article, but the only ones that seem to see it as notable are City fans. ClubOranje^T proud contributor to Wikipedia, the trivia-almanac that anyone can edit 07:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, trivial intersections are irrelevant. All that is relevant is WP:V. We have two reliable sources here, each of which makes a strong claim for this being an important match in the history of one of the clubs involved. That makes this article entirely suitable for keeping. --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does it? By that token, there are literally millions of notable football matches. Accrington beat Doncaster last night, and that was important to Accrington. I can find reliable sources that satisfy WP:V about how vital and unprecendented this result was, but I'm not pretending it's a notable match. It surely has to be notable within the context of football as a whole, and obviously this game isn't that important. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put it another way. Is the match sufficiently notable to be included in a history of the club? Like cup finals are. Like the Bon Accord one. We have two RS saying it is. --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resp - They are NOT 3 trivial intersections. All 3 of my listed disadvantageous conditions go to the heart of what defines a "comeback" in any walk of life (not just sport) - viz. a return to a former higher rank, popularity, position or prosperity. In this particular case they define the conjunction of disadvantageous conditions that had to be overcome in order for a team to turn almost certain defeat into unexpected victory. Exactly what part would a blue moon, missing a penalty, or fielding a New Zealander play in causing the spectating crowd to almost unanimously expect, right up until the very end of the game, the complete opposite outcome in a football match? Your argument is pure smoke and mirrors casuistry that any 8 year old can see is irrelevant.

Despite my Wikipedia handle I really don't have a dog in this race, but it was clear to me that prior to my own post here most of the people voting to delete were doing so because they were only considering one or two of the three relevant criteria. I would just like to see the article deleted (if that is indeed the outcome of this AfD) for all the right objective reasons, and NOT because someone claims he got a "two hour consensus" on the matter (and I would suggest that the very concept of a "two hour consensus" is worthy of a Wikipedia article in its own right, because I, for one, would genuinely like to learn how that process works). I agree with you that any web search for "greatest comeback ever" stories will produce many (maybe not quite millions, but you seem to quite enjoy subjectively stacking your arguments) of results, all of which are 100% POV. However, I'm not defending this article from such a fanbase viewpoint. My defense of it is on a purely verifiable factual basis.

The point of my previous post was to try and establish some level of objectivity in this issue amongst all the biased dismissive handwaving and hidden personal agendas. Your own citation of the Charlton-Huddersfield game goes right to the heart of the matter. Were Charlton the away side in that match or did they have the "twelth man" advantage of a home crowd? If they were playing at home then I'm afraid it doesn't count. But if you, or others, can still come up with a list of such games that establishes that my three conjoined criteria are still not all that special or notable then, as stated above, I will agree with you and change my vote to 'delete'. It's that simple. But please provide some facts in this debate to support your position for deletion and NOT just bogus side issues such as NZ players and blue moons that are not even pertinent. Or by latching onto just one of the defining criteria and conveniently ignoring the others in order to support your own case.

The real issue here, as others have pointed out already, is that there is no clearly defined criteria for what constitutes "notability". But if this article goes then a whole slew of others (such as the "Battles of Old Trafford" articles) almost certainly have to go too. As for your, "Its trivial POV fancruft and belongs in a fanblog, not an encyclopedia" statement, it probably applies to most of the Association Football (and other sport) articles currently in Wikipedia. You won't find anywhere near the amount of text dedicated to such sporting trivia in a real encyclopedia created by subject matter experts such as Encyclopedia Brittanica, where there is probably not an entry for the "Theatre of Dreams" nor an entry for the now demolished Maine Road stadium. In the larger scheme of things, almost anything to do with soccer is pretty much trivia for the masses and not considered worthy of being addressed, except in the most minimal terms, by any self-respecting encyclopedia. So be very careful what you wish for.

Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 16:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your original challenge, for a start this wasn't a league match - it was a cup game. Anyway, even though I watched the Spurs-Man City game in a pub, one game stands out as far more memorable - Tranmere 4 Southampton 3 in 2001. Even though the winners did have home advantage and were not a man down, they were a division below the opposition and came back from 3-0 down. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what's your point? I never said it was a league match. I acknowledge that being in a lower tier of a nation's football pyramid would probably constitute a fourth disadvantageous criterion for a "comeback team" in addition to the three criteria I originally listed, but it didn't apply to this match. Although, if that same cup-tie had happened a few seasons earlier when Manchester City were still a Championship team then it would have done. In the case of the Tranmere cup-tie game that you just cited, although it meets your new fourth criterion, it only meets one out of the original three I listed. So it's not a notable game. Very memorable, perhaps ... just not notable. BTW, I don't really hold with the view that all FA Cup and League Cup finals are automatically notable games. There has been something like 120+ FA Cup finals (quite a few more if you include the replay finals) since the first one was played back in 1872 - they cannot ALL be notable. IMO there was nothing particularly notable about this last one between Chelsea and Portsmouth - the outcome of that match was quite predictable even before a ball was kicked.

You said "If someone can post here a number of such references to other top flight football games" I think this is clearly saying it was a league match. And in response to "it's not a notable game", please can you direct me to the policy which defines them? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, that 1957 Charlton Athletic - Huddersfield Town game is indeed a notable game, because although it does not meet the "away game" criterion, there are possibly a lot of other new criteria it does meet. Five of Charlton's seven goals were scored by Johnny Summers, and the other two were assists by him. The goals were scored in a very short period of time; Summers' five goals include a 5-minute hat-trick. Additionally, it's the only game I know of that a team scored 6 goals and still did not win the game. All of those events in that game are rather rare to my mind, such that taken all together, they make that particular comeback rather special ... and thus notable. However, reducing high score deficits, or a team being an underdog or a rank outsider, or a team with less men performing better than one would expect them to do, or quick hat-tricks, are NOT sufficient in of themselves to make a game notable, because as rare as those events may be, they are still not rare enough. But put those sort of rare factors together (as long as they are factors related to the issue, and not just random facts such as NZ players and blue moons) such that you get "rare" cubed or to the power four, then that becomes statistically very significant, and thus notable.

Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 21:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or maybe merge if anyone can think of a decent target. A great match, but not a notable one. Coverage is all fairly routine and most of it is news reports from just after the event, which raises WP:NOTNEWS issues. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decent target being club season article or FA cup season article.--ClubOranje^T 20:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per discussion here. gonads³ 20:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A learned friend dropped me a line with the following extra RS:

([48]) (7 October 2001) chooses Charlton winning 7-6 over Huddersfield in 1958 over, for example, the Stanley Matthews FA Cup final in 1953, or Manchester United against Bayern Munich in 1999, or ManU beating Tottenham 5-3 earlier in 2001. But this article does mention the 2004 match in the context of the 10 greatest comebacks in any sport. ([49]) (6 February 2004) also opts for Charlton as the greatest comeback of all time, but again discusses Man City vs Spurs in that context. The Independent include the 4-3 result in their top 10 FA Cup comebacks - ([50]) - although half of them come after 1990. Remarkably, there does not seem to be a Wikiepedia article on Charlton 7 Huddersfield 6, but there are lots of sources - for example, ([51])

So, two more RS describing this match as historic, this time, in the context of the history of football. --Dweller (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, perhaps a "List of notable football comebacks" is in order - I can't see each match meriting an individual article. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go back to brass tacks. I assume we agree that the most significant football matches deserve their own articles? Cup finals, World Cup finals, the Bon Accord game? And I presume we agree that run of the mill matches (Norwich v Gillingham in the League Cup this week) do not? The question is the grey area in between. I'd argue strongly (and have done before) that any game that you would mention in a history of football, of a competition, or of a notable team deserves its own article. Hence Bayern Munich v Norwich City. This is subjective, of course, but not necessarily POV. I'll explain: for Bayern, that match is an insignificant embarrassment. But for Norwich, it's historic. And it's not POV, because we have RS saying so. For this article, we have RS saying it's historic in terms of the FA Cup and it's clearly historic in terms of the history of Manchester City. Two reasons for keeping. --Dweller (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A match being historically important to one of the clubs is not a reason to have an article on it - that would leave us with literally thousands of football match articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: Just because an article is in a mainstream newspaper, doesn't mean to say it is encyclopaedic fact. it's not POV, because we have RS saying so is a flawed argument. Just because it is stated in a newspaper, doesn't make it so. All the references to this being greatest comeback etc are still simply POV on behalf of the journalists who wrote such sensationalism. Remember this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It should deal with verifiable facts not verifiable opinions.--ClubOranje^T 01:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, for all the arguments for and against deletion on here, gonads³ is the only one who has put forward a compelling and good argument backing up notability of the match in the media. Remember, this match was with a team who were 3-0 down, worse off down to 10 men with Joey Barton being his usual self and then they go and score 4 goals in 1 half away from home. I think I have a good grasp of football knowledge, but I can't think of any other comeback as worthy as this one in professional football (Stevo1000 Talk 23:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT--ClubOranje^T 11:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was that me? :) gonads³ 19:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a notable article and is already well referenced, but here are some further references [52][53][54]
Keep per my opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester City F.C. 4–1 Tottenham Hotspur F.C.. The "match report" could use inline citations, though.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, "this is a non-notable event, delete"? Hmm, really? List of notable references which prove the event is "notable":

Is it any wonder I'm annoyed at some of the comments on here? Why are we here having this discussion about an event that is apparently deemed "non-notable". This comeback was special and a one-off Wikipedia page is perfectly fine as the quotes in the references state. The page should stand in my view, it clearly is a famous comeback and the question "Is this notable enough?" is subjective. It would be a disgrace if this page was deleted, Wikipedia shouldn't be like this Stevo1000 (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that a lot of these sources have some serious problems. Of the seven you've provided (and well done on finding so many), links 1 and 2 are news report (see WP:NOTNEWS), link 3 is broken, and links 4, 5 and 7 don't qualify as significant coverage. That only leaves this, which does indeed help to establish notability, but WP:GNG requires multiple sources. Find one more significant non-news source and you've done it - but these seven alone aren't quite enough. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying my best here. Oh and here is the repaired Daily Mail link, should work now:

Daily Mail - 4 May 2010, "2004, Spurs 3 City 4 - An FA Cup classic"

Other references I've found:

Whoateallthepies.tv, "Top Five Man City v Tottenham Videos - 1. Spurs 3-4 Man City, 2004, An astonishing FA Cup comeback by City, who were 3-0 down at halftime"
Footballfancast, "Tottenham 3-4 Manchester City (2004): Not a Premier League match but a classic nonetheless and goes down as one of the greatest comebacks in FA Cup history. Spurs raced into a three goal lead in the first half at White Hart Lane, but City (minus Joey Barton) weren’t about to render the second half as academic as Martin Tyler suggested. Andy Gray’s “I’ve seen it, but I still don’t believe it” says it all…"
Sportingo, "Football's greatest comeback kings - 1. Tottenham 3 - Manchester City 4 (FA Cup, Feb. 4, 2004) - Ten-man Manchester City pulled off an amazing FA Cup comeback to earn a fifth round tie at Manchester United. Spurs led 3-0 at half time and Joey Barton received a second yellow card for dissent seconds after the half-time whistle sounded, yet Tottenham managed to throw a seemingly unassailable lead away."
Boxofficefootball, 29 July 2009, "The greatest ever comeback in F.A Cup history? Manchester City down to ten men 3-0 down then comeback to win 3-4 In February 2004 has to be right up there as one of the best your ever see. As kevin Kegan quoted after the game They’ll talk about this game long after we’ve all gone he was not wrong."
Premiershiptalk, 8 March 2010, "Ten-man Manchester City pulled off an amazing FA Cup comeback to earn a fifth round tie at Manchester United back in 2004. Tottenham led 3-0 at half-time after Ledley King , Robbie Keane, and Christian Ziege all scored in the first 45 minutes. City’s Joey Barton was sent off for a second booking when the score was 3-0 but Sylvain Distin, Paul Bosvelt, and Shaun Wright-Phillips leveled the tie before Jonathan Macken headed a late winner.Kevin Keegan said: “They’ll talk about this game long after we’ve all gone”. We are still talking about it now, Kev."

I know this is a news report, but it backs up the claims that this was a special comeback in English football and is a notable event:

The Guardian "This may well be as great a comeback as English football has ever known and Spurs' humiliation must be of corresponding proportions. Just for a while, the entire City side looked superhuman last night."

I could probably find more, but surely this has to be strong evidence for keeping the page Stevo1000 (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep okay, so from my point of a view, a combination of WP:NOTPAPER with clear WP:N (due to coverage in a number of reliable sources, and clearly WP:V from that) means that this, an event with multiple third-party coverage, which has stood the test of time (albeit a few years) is still notable enough for coverage in this encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for backing me up despite your doubts Stevo1000 (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"find-a-link" - always a fun game!

http://www.soccerphile.com/soccerphile/news/comebacks.html says it is not even in the top 20 comebacks
http://www.thefootballtube.com/videos/7615/best-football-comeback-ever-inter---sampdoria-0405.html says Inter-Sampodoria was the greatest comeback
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/5greatest-comebacks-in-football.html says it wasn't in the top 5
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,,562527,00.html only has one football comeback in the top 10 for all sports, but it is not this one (bigger comeback, also with 10 men)

and thousands more, all of which show it is purely subjective opinion on what is a great comeback.

Virtually all links provided in support of notability are blogs (not WP:RS), news reports directly after the event (WP:NOTNEWS), match preview flashback (general sports journalism failing WP:NTEMP) and generally not "indepth coverage" so actually do not pass WP:GNG. None of them pass WP:V except to verify that the game took place, but since the arguments for keep centre around it being notable as the"greatest comeback in history" they fail WP:V in that - as shown by these links - the status as "greatest comeback" is purely subjective and therefore does not conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS. Yes it was a good spectacle as many football games are, but it is not encyclopaedic.--ClubOranje^T 01:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many proper RS cited on this page and in the article. I agree some are blogs, but many are not. The commentor above who has discounted some sources because they are from newspapers is astonishing. WP:NOTNEWS does not preclude the use of newspapers as sources. Finding sources that don't include foo in a list of the "20 best things relating to foo" does not wipe out the sources that do include foo in lists of 30 greatest things related to foo. It merely means that there is dissent - something that should be noted in the article. Like, for example, creationist opposition to the theory of evolution should be noted in the article about evolution - it is not an argument for deleting it. (And vice versa). --Dweller (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fell free to twist my words, "news reports directly after the event (WP:NOTNEWS)" is what I wrote, at no time precluding the use of newspapers as sources where such use is appropriate.--ClubOranje^T 11:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of the four links provided there by ClubOranje, the only reliable one is the last one which was written three years before this match took place so it's not surprising that the match was omitted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point - they were supposed to be comparatively similar; a blog, a mag, a newspaper... The point is ALL the links are unreliable. Mine, Stevo1000's, Dweller's, the ones in the article....because they all fail the basic test of reliability: WP:VERIFIABILITY. There is NO verification that this is the greatest comeback as that is entirely subjective. It is demonstrable that there have been other comebacks from more goals down, in less time, with less parity between teams. Unencyclopedic POV supported by systemic bias. Nothing more.--ClubOranje^T 11:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I just wondered why you said the fourth ref had only one football comeback, but "not this one". It was because it hadn't been played at the time. But thanks for clearing up my missed point. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To repeat myself, dubious notability aside, if kept, shouldn't the page be moved? That's not a title, that's a score, with no date! That'd be like having the 2003 Heritage Classic article at Montreal Canadiens 4 - 3 Edmonton Oilers. How many such games finished with that score? Plus I don't see why this shouldn't be merged to the appropriate football club article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was '. Move to Langpih as there is content in this article that can be used in an article on the location. CaliforniaAliBaba (talk · contribs)'s edits to the article make this a feasible outcome. —Spaceman'Spiff 08:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Langpih incident[edit]

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

Delete Non notable article. WP:NOTNEWS --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for news reports. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Doesn't fit WP:EVENT criteria. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 18:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite as an article about Langpih --- a verifiable human settlement about which we have no article and which seems quite notable due to the dispute surrounding it: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. cab (call) 00:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is not about Langpih, its about a non notable "incident".--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so I said rewrite ... which I have done in such a way to make the village's notability quite clear. Mention of an incident like this is an obvious part of an article on the village itself, along with more typical information like location, population, administrative structure, etc., which can be added through the normal editing process. The village has been in the news numerous times prior to the recent incident. cab (call) 11:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Langpih, where the current information can be preserved in the history section. utcursch | talk 17:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copa Hermandad[edit]

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

A one-off match that is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable one-off friendly game with no significantly high or exceptional status into football. Per WP:NOTNEWS. --Angelo (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable match. Giant Snowman 18:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable friendly match. Big Dom 21:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PDF Cube[edit]

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

Software product with no indication of notability. Possible spam/COI: initially created with the edit summary "Free PDF creator for life". PROD contested without explanation. I42 (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PDF Cube is a free software to create PDF file, you can check this on www.pdfcube.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdftech (talk • contribs) 10:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not at issue. What is missing is independent, reliable sources that affirm notability. Also note that an encyclopedic article should explain the product's impact and importance, not merely list its features as it does now - that is merely advertising. I42 (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can i remove that notice from PDF cube page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdftech (talk • contribs) 11:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What notice do you want to remove? ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Software product with no claim to minimal importance; a virtual printer driver that makes PDFs, of which there are a fair number. I had always suspected that any PDF document actually is four simultaneous, cubic documents in one. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Spam. Chris (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can not find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Advertisement. Carrite (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: blatant spam from a single-purpose account.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I m not making this page for advertisement,i just want to share a a good and free PDF tool with other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdftech (talk • contribs) 14:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even freeware needs to be made known to an audience... It may be "a good and free PDF tool", but this isn't the place for sharing it - unless you can show that it's received coverage in reliable sources. See WP:RS. I note that while PDF Cube is freeware, on the site linked to is also PDF Cube Pro, which isn't free. I have heard of PDF Cube - but that doesn't count as a reliable source, as I can't remember where. There may be references out there - get digging. Peridon (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Uncertainty abounds regarding this article, but there is no consensus to delete despite two relists. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lu-Yu Tea Culture Institute[edit]

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

Non-notable tea store that offers classes on how to drink tea. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^express 20:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if all they do is "offer classes on how to drink tea", they're obviously unimportant! Without wishing to fall foul of WP:OUTING, I admit I'd always assumed that an editor with the name "Wong" had some Asian background, and thus likely some knowledge of tea's cultural significance. It appears that I was wrong, and that you're happy to nominate on the basis of ignorantly dismissing another's culture as unimportant (and of course, a side-order of WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE).

When you're done here, perhaps The Book of Tea next, as that's just one of far too many little cookbooks about tea. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of my ignorance of culture are unimportant. All I need to see is the lack of reliable sources. Your knowledge of WP:CIVIL and WP:PERSONAL seems to be lacking however. And not that it matters but, for the record, I'm not asian. Have fun updating your internal representation of my nationality. Please keep the discussion to the article, and leave your accusations and assumptions of the personal nature of the nominator out of it. SnottyWong ^confabulate 15:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if this article meets WP:N or not, or whether it should be deleted. However to present it for deletion on the basis that "offering classes on how to drink tea" was faintly ridiculous is very narrow-minded of you. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how difficult it must be for you to make a comment without personally insulting me, but I'll ask you yet again to do your best in the future. SnottyWong ^confer 17:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lu-Yu Tea Culture Institute has tea culture classes and has certification for tea master, over four levels, also some of the classes are transferable to Tenfu Tea College.

also check the links for references, including the offical site. There is nothing commercial in the article. icetea (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lu-Yu Tea Culture Institute is In Lonely Planet Taiwan

Lu-Yu Tea Culture Institute, in Lonely Planet From the bottom of page 60. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ckbkCwa06qI/R9XQX7Z-6mI/AAAAAAAAAeo/FMHfsmb3WiE/s1600-h/DSC06980email.JPG Taiwan Travel Guide Lonely Planet 7th Edition / November 2007 ISBN: 9781741045482 400 pp / 16 pp colour / 89 maps next edition due: October 2011 Robert Kelly , Joshua Samuel Brown icetea (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is really a reliable source, more like an advertisement. Also, it seems interesting that the picture of the ad you included here lists an email address of [email protected], and your Wikipedia username happens to be Icetea8. This is what we call a conflict of interest. Editors are highly discouraged from creating articles on subjects to which they are closely related or involved. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your business. SnottyWong ^gossip 14:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is to snottywong's statements about, "icetea8" and "... place to advertise your business", Yes I am icetea8 here, gmail, tweeter, facebook, I don't hide that. Lonely Planet informs and aids people where to go on trips, you called that an "ad". I am an instructor at the school, it is not a business that I own. If you search me, you will never find any business advertising. One of my main goals is to give the English speaking community exposure to Chinese topics, like tea culture. icetea (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the tea school was notable enough for an article, then it would be covered by reliable sources and the article would not have to be written by one of its employees. SnottyWong ^chatter 04:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember it is located in Taiwan and has schools in China so a Chinese search of "trad: 陸羽茶藝中心/simp: 陆羽茶艺中心" which is the Official Chinese name for the Institute will give more references. icetea (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the only reliable sources for this subject are in chinese, then perhaps this article is more appropriate for the chinese language Wikipedia. SnottyWong ^confer 15:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not how notability works. Proposals to amend WP:N to add requirements like this have repeatedly failed. If this actually had sources it Chinese, it should be kept. However, it doesn't ... cab (call) 03:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finding References

In searching of "trad: 陸羽茶藝中心/simp: 陆羽茶艺中心" which is the official name of the school, the English in the past has had another spelling, Lu Yu Tea Art Center. icetea (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can add non-English sources, where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. BINOY ^Talk 07:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The institute seems to be notable, although sources are hard to find. I added a few to the article. Among other sources of fame, the institute is the originator of the notable Wu-Wo tea ceremony. (And please don't dismiss that ceremony with an WP:IDONTKNOWIT.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Icetea, please don't add headings to this discussion. They just make it hard to navigate. --MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contrary to Icetea's claim, the level of coverage in Chinese is barely any better Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL shows 21 news articles, none of which are in-depth coverage, but rather trivial mentions where they've managed to get quoted in articles about other subjects. cab (call) 03:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three ways for searching Due to the fact that the Institute has used another English name in the past. If you do a search deleting -wiki, -myblog and the -offical site, you will find info in Chinese and English, search:
"陸羽茶藝中心" also search
"lu-yu tea art center" and
"lu-yu tea culture institute"
parameters of -wikipedia -teaarts -tenren -luyutea1980 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icetea8 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 09:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Exum[edit]

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

Conflict of Interest/Lack of Notability - This article does not list noteworthy accomplishments other than what would appear on a resumé. In addition, it appears this article was created by the subject himself, so an unbiased editor has yet to vouch for the subject's notability. DaoKaioshin (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obscure sports journalist. Carrite (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 09:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find things that he wrote, but I can't find much about him. I do not think there is enough to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable in himself. Chris (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

José Plá Moya[edit]

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

Non-notable reserve team player, no WP:RS, clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked for reliable sources, and found nothing for sources whatsoever, reliable or not. I found one mirror, and not much else. The Spanish Wikipedia article on him is equally unsourced. No WP:RS, and it doesn't look like any are to be found. Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE whatsoever, considering Levante UD is not a fully professional league. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 18:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 20:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence he played at a notable level, fails NSPORTS, in depth no coverage to get him over any other guideline--ClubOranje^T 01:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any evidence he's played in one of the fully-pro leagues in Spain and the article appears to fail the general notability guideline. Jogurney (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This fails absolutely everything, from the core policy of WP:V through WP:GNG down to WP:NSPORT. Keeping this would be crazy. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 12:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hijos De Rebelde's[edit]

And

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

Delete No sources are cited. A Google search for "Hijos De Rebelde's" produces nothing at all other than Wikipedia. A search for "Hijos De Rebelde" produces 22 pages, most if not all of which are clearly not about this TV show, and most if not all of which are not from reliable sources. Searches for "Hijos De Rebelde" together with other names from the article (e.g. "Hijos De Rebelde" "Marina Arango") again produce no hits at all other than Wikipedia. One exception is "Hijos De Rebelde" Erreway, which produces Wikipedia plus one blog post which does not, as far as I can see, suggest the existence of any such "remake". In short, the whole thing is completely unverifiable, and there is certainly no evidence of notability. (PROD was removed by IP editor with no edits away from this topic. No explanation of the removal was given.) JamesBWatson (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fails WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 12:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtualism[edit]

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

Proposed economic system - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. No third-party references, no evidence that this term is in use except by its author. (Note: virtualism is also an unrelated religious term.) Possibly a promotional for the book "Virtualism: A New Political Economy". (Contested proposed deletion.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:N. The article practically tells us it doesn't meet WP:N, with the mention in the notes section saying "The virtualism is not established term at this moment". It was hard to do a Google search for it, as the term can be rather universal, but the only possibly related thing I really noticed was the book. As for this article being a promotional for the book, I rather doubt it. The article says: "The book "Virtualism: A New Political Economy" doesn't really provide a clear definition of the term virtualism and as such shouldn't be used as source of interpretation for this term." Even if this article is not deleted, that notes section needs to be moved to the talk page. I'll leave it for now, though. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 18:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence has been added to the article in response to me proposing the article for deletion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unwikified original essay. Carrite (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We need more time to make the term works. Can we have at least one month before the final decision is made?

There are three main reasons that you as editors of Wikipedia should keep the term alive for some time.

You don't have a clue what we are trying to do, so it makes sense to wait a little bit
Sometimes it's fine to build the term artificially and use Wikipedia strictly as marketing tools
Finally if the idea will be implemented than it will be beneficial for huge number of people

By the way everybody here is welcome to participate in this enterprise. All questions and concerns will be answered as precisely as possible. Dukedomain (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sometimes it's fine to build the term artificially and use Wikipedia strictly as marketing tools." No, it's never fine; in fact, this is expressly prohibited by the policies. (Wikipedia is meant to be a compendium of existing knowledge, not a means of making something known.) "Finally if the idea will be implemented than it will be beneficial for huge number of people." Okay; when it's implemented, or when the idea gains significant third-party attention (like communism, libertarianism etc.), it will be notable and will have an article. No earlier. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When the article's creator defends it by saying that it is okay to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool for something made up one day, and then that that day is in fact some day in the future yet to be determined ... You almost wonder if we need a new CSD criterion. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 04:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not being a verifiably notable thing WP:NRVE and for being a self-promotional cry for publicity WP:SPIP. Sarasco (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - it's quite categorically not "fine" to use Wikipedia "strictly as marketing tools" and "build the term artificially". Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. The Rhymesmith (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pending - I appreciate all the comments that were done even though they are all negative. In the future it will help us to defend the term. Mike's last comment in some way I feel was supportive. It's too bad that Wikipedia does not allow to have pending/temporary status for articles in question. "for being a self-promotional cry for publicity" - it's too early for us to look for publicity in a serious manner. The main reason in creating the term on this stage was too see if somebody has some argumentation against of using "virtualism" as the name of the economical system that's based on virtual money and present lightweight alternative to the state. Also it's very practical to make some kind of semantic reservation for this term. I treat the whole experiment as very successful because no one here said - something's wrong with using the word "virtualism" in the context that was presented.Dukedomain (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A merge per Fences&Windows may also be appropriate but that is an editing decision. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Pentagon shooting[edit]

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

Fails WP:ONEEVENT. Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 07:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; that's a misapplication of WP:ONEEVENT because the article is about the event, not the person. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 07:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A large part of the article is about the perpatratorand the event itself is not of much consequence. (See talk page discussions).--Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 08:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, it was at the Pentagon but people get shot all the time in the National Capital Region. It was big news at the time but did not have a lasting impact. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. No indication or assertion of lasting notability of the event. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Tisane here. WP:ONEEVENT is not applicable as the article is about the event. And regardless of the WP:OR provided by NortyNort it's not about people getting shot all the time in the National Capital area, it's about a shooting at the Pentagon. This doesn't happen "all the time."--Feddx (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still had no lasting impact and less of an impact or notability than most of the similar actions/people in List of incidents of political violence in Washington, D.C. with articles. I think an expanded subsection in The Pentagon may suffice.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious mis-application of WP:ONEEVENT/WP:BIO1E (Which stipulates that a person's article should not be created if they are notable for only one incident, not that both articles are unnecessary). Furthermore, this passes the WP:NOTNEWS description of "indiscriminate information" and routine announcements (something such as "Severe storm knocks out power to 100,000" might be true but not encyclopedia-worthy"). As an event, this also easily passes WP:EVENT and WP:GNG because of significant coverage and analysis (Also note that WP:NTEMP states "it does not need to have ongoing coverage.") This is a well-written article and there is no reason for deletion. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fiftytwo thirty. Well-cited article, about a not yet forgotten incident. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EFFECT and Tarc. While a shooting at the Pentagon is certainly unusual, this shooting had no lasting effect beyond the immediate sticker shock of "Shooting at the Pentagon." While the article is well sourced, most of the sources detailing the shooting are from that day or the few days following. There was no long lasting impact, no expansive security initiative that followed it, no analysis to speak of. The only thing that happened was on March 5, everyone reported the shooting, on March 6, everyone talked about the man who did the shooting, on March 7, no one could find any more to the story other than a psycho attempted to murder Pentagon policemen. Tragic and shocking? Absolutely. Notable beyond a few news cycles? Probably not. AP1787 (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. The notability of these sorts of incidents is difficult to evaluate. This incident has nothing particularly noteworthy to say other than "a mentally unstable man with a grudge against the government went out with a bang." Compared to the guy who flew a small plane into the IRS building in Texas, this case has not held the interest of the media or the public, as evidenced by the (lack of) lasting treatment by secondary sources and by Wikipedia page views. The 2010 Austin plane crash article gets gets over 280 page views a day, but this article only gets 37 page views a day. Abductive (reasoning) 03:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apologies to the creator of the article but thank God this is a unique event of a sicko with no repitition. I suggest moving this to the wikinews so that it can be recycled if something like this happens again. --Luckymelon (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sicko"? Please! Give Bedell his due. He was an anti-government freedom fighter with a sound anarcho-capitalist ethical foundation for using retaliatory force against the State. But, anyone challenging the state apparently has a mental illness, according to mainstream society. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 05:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would shooting a couple of wage-slave security guards help fight the State? Abductive (reasoning) 06:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your discussions limited to whether the article merits deletion or not.--Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 08:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tisane, advocacy of violence is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Please strike your statement. This is not a soapbox for radical libertarianism. Fences&Windows 13:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that if someone said, "The officers killed him in justifiable self-defense," no one would ask that editor to strike his statement, even though it is putting the officers' violence in a positive light. To denounce Bedell's actions, or to describe them as justifiable, is merely a political statement; political theory is, after all, that subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. The anti-libertarian political theory was briefly presented, and I briefly presented the libertarian counter-argument. That should more than suffice, really; come to think of it, it would have been better to have avoided judging Bedell one way or the other in this forum, since that's not what we're here for. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 17:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tisane, you really need to check yourself. With all due respect, I don't understand this kamikazee complex, nor is POV advocacy of terrorism in any way acceptable on Wikipedia. Tisane: "My Story." Carrite (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least find somewhere to merge such as The Pentagon#Shooting, which the nominator failed to even consider per WP:BEFORE (and citing WP:ONEEVENT is a joke, at least read what our policies and guidelines say before citing them). Someone launching an attack on the Pentagon is not a routine event, and Wikipedia does normally have articles on such attacks on government targets: 2010 Las Vegas courthouse shooting, 2010 West Memphis police shootings, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting, 2010 Austin plane crash, Hutaree, all of which are often mentioned in the same breath as the Pentagon shooting; I'm arguing precedent, not WP:OTHER. The coverage in this case was international, in-depth (involving analysis of the event and comparison to other attacks), and not just one turn of the news cycle. The incident is discussed in the media as one of several recent attacks on the US federal government;[55][56][57][58][59] perhaps it is worth having a article specifically about Attacks on the United States federal government? (we do have Militia movement and Patriot movement). Fences&Windows 13:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that spirit I have nominated the 2010 Albuquerque, New Mexico office shooting page for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 20:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:POINT and WP:Other stuff exists.Biophys (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, F&W's comment reminded me of that article, that's all. Abductive (reasoning) 19:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a significant coverage by the press to justify notability (not so for 2010 Albuquerque, New Mexico office shooting).Biophys (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. it seems the article have a good references and the accident is important and notable. in this manner my opinion is keeping it.--Behtis (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the dickweed killer blew up a Taco Bell, it would be a one event situation, but since he shot up the Pentagon it became a matter of national consciousness and thus a historical event worthy of WP coverage. Carrite (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per well-articulated remarks of Fiftytwo thirty & Fences and Windows. Cgingold (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EFFECT. May deserve a footnote in a relevant Pentagon article, but no more.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kizio[edit]

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

This article does not have even one independent source, Its notability was never proved.Alwhorl (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND. I can't find anything to establish notability and I engineered a Google search that doesn't bring up much reliable sourcing. --NortyNort (Holla) 12:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dlete per nom. Chris (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was RESULT - Speedy keep, nominator is the sock of a banned editor, no outstanding delete !votes ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ajegunle[edit]

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

The article is not about a city but just a district. The article is several years old and editors haven't established notability. There is a small chance that it is notable, but then someone in 50 years could restart this article. I think it is not notable. RIPGC (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is a sock of a banned editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This appears to be a a distinct and noted "slum" district of Lagos and plenty has been written about it. [60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67]. It even has 5 million residents. [68]. A major district like this in a major city would be inherently notable. The published works about this place solidifies its notability. --Oakshade (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alor Gajah. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SJKC Khiak Yew[edit]

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

Elementary school, not particularly notable. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 03:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's an old school and the only Chinese elementary school. Don't be so quick to call it not notable. RIPGC (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)~~ Sock of banned editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Delete (unless sources are added): Generally speaking, elementary schools almost always fail notability, simply because they don't receive significant coverage in secondary sources. The original editor has added two links two government sites that do verify the school's existence, but do nothing to verify the school's notability. Editor has added a link to a web site in Chinese, but I can't even tell what kind of site it is. It's called "My Kampung," which makes me think it's some type of blogging site, but the format looks more like a newspaper. At a minimum, we need some explanation for what that article says and why it makes the school notable. However, one article alone will not be enough to establish notability, as we need significant coverage, not just one article. Response to RIPGC: Just because a school is old, that doesn't make it notable. I still don't see how this meets GNG. It's not our responsibility to prove it non-notable--per WP:BURDEN, its the responsibility of those who wish to include it to prove that it meets the notability guidelines.Qwyrxian (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added translation of the Chinese article in Reference. Auto translation of "Kai-you" is Khiak Yew (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete (unless verifiable reliable sources are added). The Japanese Wikipedia article is also the subject of a deletion debate. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 04:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would take something quite remarkable for a primary school of 63 students to be notable. I'm not seeing it here (eg lack of coverage in reliable sources, which isn't too hard to find in the Malaysian news). --Mkativerata (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability per lack of sources. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Alor Gajah. This is the action we take with elementary schools in those Anglophone countries with no school district structure and it would indicate systemic bias to treat a Malaysian school less favourably. TerriersFan (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball keep. Non-admin closure. Chris (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto++[edit]

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

WP:NN product. Government certification doesn't make it notable. Toddst1 (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I admit there are some WP:NPOV issues in the language of the article, but I think there is enough substance to this to make it notable. A software library which has survived 15 years and is still in use in somewhat notable in and of itself (compare libtiff). Additional Comment: I'm not sure I agree with the allegation of conflict of interest on the part of the article author; the edit history is certainly not a single-purpose account, nor does the author of the article appear to be the author of the library. The article author self-identifies as a user of the library, but I don't think that should count as a conflict of interest.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Updating my vote on this to Snowball Keep, on the basis of the subsequent improvements to the initial article.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I agree with Vulcan's Forge on the point that there is enough information to deem this article notable. I also believe this particular library is unique enough to merit it's own article instead of being mentioned in another. Other computer libraries can be found here.

--Joel M. (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I would like to update my vote to Snowball Keep as well. This topic is notable for other reasons that don't have to do with, "government certifications." -- ℐℴℯℓ ℳ. ℂℌAT ✐ 04:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to step in here - I'll keep it short. I could not help but notice the 'Find Sources' tool seemed to miss references in periodicals such as Wired and Information Week. And I agree with Toddst1 - a government certification does not make it notable (Crypto++ is notable for other reasons ;).
- Is This Man a Crypto Criminal? (Wired) - Comments provided by Wei Dai which also recognizes/attributes Crypto++
- Math Error Could Compromise Cryptographic Systems (Information Week) - Comments provided by Wei Dai which also recognizes/attributes Crypto++
- Groove Software Obtains Key Government Security Validations - Recognizes/attributes Crypto++
- Commercial Products Using Crypto++
- Noncommercial Projects Using Crypto++
- FIPS Validated Cryptographic Module, Certificate 819
- FIPS Validated Cryptographic Module, Certificate 562
- FIPS Validated Cryptographic Module, Certificate 343

Jeffrey Walton (submitter of the article) Noloader (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Also, as someone with some knowledge in this area, this is a very established library in cryptography. There are plenty of sources; its often cited as a source in scholarly papers, and is recommended in various courses as the crypto lib of choice. [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] - just a few, there are tons out there. Ryan Norton 08:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a note, there isn't a conflict of interest in a strict sense, it's exactly how someone new to wikipedia and a user of the library would write it. I'd rewrite the article myself if I wasn't so occupied by others at the moment. Ryan Norton 12:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the problems with the article are just a simple edit away. Perhaps it's a good idea to have the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors take a look at it. -- ℐℴℯℓ ℳ. ℂℌAT ✐ 18:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, with a little collaboration between this turned into quite the article.... cheers! Ryan Norton 03:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not principally against this article, but please read the notability guideline before you hop on the "keep" bandwagon. The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Links that merely mention Crypto++ (or cover it non-substantially), links to wikis, papers that have been produced in exchange for money (e.g. FIPS certifications), articles that quote the software's authors, are irrelevant and only divert attention from what really needs to be demonstrated. Preferably the sources would be written exclusively about Crypto++ and appear in recognized publications. So far I can only point out one source that actually qualifies in the notability criteria: [75] (thanks Ryan Norton). -- intgr [talk] 20:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are a few more sources similar to that one: [76] [77] [78] [79] (I'm the developer of the library in question.) --Weidai (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another really good one:

Comparative Analysis of Software Libraries for Public Key Cryptography Paper from the University of Fairfax, VA. The paper compares Crypto++ (CryptoPP) to eight other libraries. [pages 11 -28]

The paper is full of technical information about Crypto++. Findings from the investigation: "CryptoPP leads in terms of support for cryptographic primitives and schemes, but is the slowest of all investigated libraries." -- ℐℴℯℓ ℳ. ℂℌAT ✐ 21:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thanks, it's quite clear that these sources have significant coverage. Can this discussion be closed per WP:SNOW? -- intgr [talk] 21:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I came across a ton and just spewed a few, I should have been more selective - I know better ;p. Plus, it is actually somewhat difficult to find those particular sources for something in this field that is as old as this and is under multiple names with a random google search (note to self, use google scholar next time). Ryan Norton 23:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FlippingBook[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Ironholds (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Advertising. Carrite (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. In addition, not so much notability. I don't see any major reputable sources talking about this technology. みんな空の下 (トーク) 06:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources present do not show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (hoax). SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

365 Lies[edit]

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

Future television show with no properly sourced indication of notability — or even existence, given that all of the links listed under References come up as "domain not found" (except for tvlistings, which only indicates current TV listings and has no information about future shows at all.) Accordingly, this falls somewhere along the line between crystal-gazing and outright hoax. Previously prodded, but prod notice was removed by an anon with no rationale or article improvement provided. Delete unless real sources can be added to demonstrate that the show really does exist. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible future TV show means definite current delete... Carrite (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 9 Google hits for "365 Lies" Nickelodeon", all of them unrelated. This sure seems like a WP:HOAX. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is either crystal-gazing or a hoax. Either way, it gets deleted.
Speedy Delete as a hoax. The article falls into WP:CRYSTAL. JJ98 (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sparx Systems[edit]

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

Administrative listing. Article was CSD-G11'd, but a related AfD resulted in a keep decision, so it didn't seem correct to me to CSD this. Hence, bringing it to AfD for a broader review. I personally am undecided which way it should go, but let the group mind decide. If the result is ultimately to delete, then Sparx Enterprise Architect (which is now a redirect back to here) should be deleted too. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Note that Sparx Enterprise Architect currently redirects here. This business is best known for Enterprise Architect, a popular UML and SysML modeling tool, which sounds like more IT department stuff of a kind unlikely to have long term historical notability or be sourceable among widely read sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, as well as the Sparx Enterprise Architect redirect. みんな空の下 (トーク) 20:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dipolog City. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global Springs of Learning Academy[edit]

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

not notable AirplanePro^Radio_Checklist 21:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dipolog City. Could not find any reliable information on Google, not even what level of school it is, but one blog entry suggested that it is an elementary school. Such schools are usually merged into their locality. --MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Dipolog City - this is the normal action for non-high schools in countries without a school district structure. TerriersFan (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professional in Human Resources[edit]

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

This article seems to serve no purpose other than the promotion of the Human Resource Certification Institute and appears to have been written mainly by members of the institute's marketing staff, most recently user:Nona chigewe. The only references are to the institute and there's no evidence that either the institute or its qualifications are notable. Fails WP:RS, W:VER, WP:N, WP:COI andy (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it should be rewritten big time. Christina Silverman (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it and the related articles into a single article for the Institute . We do have such information for other professions. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article on the institute but it was recently deleted as spam... andy (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete can't find any good sources other ones that verify it exists Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Christina Silverman. Legitimate certification in employment law, but horribly spammy. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find significant coverage by independent reliable sources to establish notability. Article seems to be nothing but a slight rewrite of the website sections it addresses, thus is promotional.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep. This is a no brainer. PHR certification is the minimum standard for professional employment in human resources on a global scale. While worldwide universities and colleges offer practicum to study for the exam, the certification is awarded and valid through HRCI. This certification has been around for over 30 years. A search using the links above presents numerous news, books, and scholar sources supporting notability. There are links to 359 books that prepare individuals for the certification exam. The following links support notability, reliable sources, and verifiability. (COI is not valid criteria for article deletion.) [80][81][82][83][84] Cindamuse (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep and trim the fat. Very reluctant given yours truly's aversion to HR clerks and diploma mills, not to mention combinations of these evils... Unfortunately, a closer examination of HRCI-related study books offered by American bookstores, and the numbers of user reviews submitted for these books, indicates that the certification, indeed, has a mass following. It's an invasion: they grow in numbers every day! They'd rather grow carrots for a living... East of Borschov 20:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I googled "PHR" and this was the first and most unbiased source. Many certification programs use language like this one to self-promote their product, but certifications show advanced knowledge in a particular field. We keep articles about what a Bachelors degree is so I would expect Wikipedia to have a page on what a PHR designation is. Merge if you have to, but do not delete! Kshannon (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —fetch ·comms 00:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Toh Bachcha Hai Ji[edit]

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

not notable AirplanePro^Radio_Checklist 18:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Forthcoming film of a national award winning director, good news coverage etc (Gnews shows coverage in mainstream Indian media). Filming has already begun (in july) , so it clearly meets WP:NFF as well.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James d'Orma Braman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/James d'Orma Braman

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

Unimportant politician who fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Served his time as mayor without doing anything that garnered great attention. Seattle is not New York so he doesn't fit into the WP:N/BIO criteria just by being a mayor, aside from the fact that only half of the other mayors have their own articles. Also the sources used are not neutral (biography by his son) and collide with the article (supposedly served from 1964 to 1969, source states 1968). DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is in a less than acceptable state. But the sources are definitely out there. There are quite a few newspaper articles from the 60s and 70s albeit behind paywalls, and the free sources are quite brief.[85] But they are there. The mayor of a city the size of Seattle is highly unlikely to be non-notable. To boot, he was also a senior federal public servant.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mkativerata. Edward321 (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets criteria within WP:POLITICIAN as mayor of a major metropolitan city. Cindamuse (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Street[edit]

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

Remove--not a notable person. Hundreds and hundreds of scholars in Cambridge have the same profile as this person.Wikipedia is a untrust worthy source for academic articles (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Fixed the AfD. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 19:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

claimed notability is as a broadcaster, not a scholar. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. One Television Correspondent does not suffice a Wiki Entry. What was his mark in reporting?62.173.69.98 (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If he is indeed a significant Australian television news programme's political correspondent, then he's definitely notable as somebody whom appears in the public eye on a regular basis. Esteffect (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hmm. Street is a chief correspondent on Nine Network and is considered a top journalist in Australia. He is the 2009 winner of the National Press Club of Australia's annual award for contributions to journalism. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Certainly a very sparse article, but judging on the amount of information out there about Mr. Street, with a little tender-loving care, it would be able to shake off the stub tag and avoid the appearance of non-notability. Certainly satisfies WP:BIO. AP1787 (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —fetch ·comms 00:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Missing Chromosome[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As a fan of this band I am personally undecided for this debate, but this album almost certainly falls under the WP:NALBUMS definition of a non-notable bootleg and/or promo-only recording. To my knowledge it has never been acknowledged by the band, and in this forum post a collector admits that it started out as a personal download project that got out of hand. The album keeps creeping around in the band;s community of fans, as can be seen periodically at Talk:The Mars Volta (sections 37, 47, 48). It remains an item of interest to fans because of the presence of some unreleased songs that are not available elsewhere. Also note that an article for the album was already deleted once (see first nomination) in late 2009 after a much less detailed discussion. Reliable sources are a real problem too. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Undecided - I looked and couldn't find anything outside of a ton of blogs and message boards, there seems to be significant (fan) coverage for a supposed bootleg... I'm not sure. Its on sale at plenty of sites, on discogs, I'm inclined to keep an album like this personally, but by the rules, it probably needs to be deleted. - Theornamentalist (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —fetch ·comms 00:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medsoc[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Possibly notable, Cant find many sources. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Student unionism in the United Kingdom. As far as I can see, this article is just defining what a medical school student union is in the UK, and then lists all of the UK medical schools. I couldn't really find any sources on MEDSOC specifically, although many universities have "medsocs", so I think that the article can be deleted and a mention of it could be added to the student unionism in the UK article that I linked. --Slon02 (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename' to something like "List of medical school student unions in the UK" or whatever. As a list, it seems reasonably OK to keep per WP:LIST. Herostratus (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ^talk 03:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prudential prime properties[edit]

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

For more than two years this article – complete with its lack of references, biased/advertising tone, and title issues – has sat on Wikipedia, created by an SPA. It doesn't seem to be too notable. (Also..."Maynard, Massachewcetts" [sic]? Really?) Raymie Humbert (t • c) 01:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There seem to be other real estate companies with the same affiliation and name, for those looking for Ghits. The SPA, User:Aquinn04, is Allen Quinn, a listing agent with this particular company. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 01:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really, in fact. You'll find that for all but two and bit months of those two and a third years, the article actually said "Maynard, MA". Uncle G (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find significant coverage by reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Advertising. Carrite (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but we should not attack people by calling them SPA. Otherwise, this could degenerate. We could call admins "non-article writing busybodies" or AFD participants "troublemakers with too much time on their hands". Let's put an end to this name calling. RIPGC (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sock of banned editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Note. Delete due to inappropriate promotional nature. Additionally, any attempt to disclose the identity of an editor is a violation of the privacy policy of Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Please see WP:PRIVACY for more information. The above attempt to disclose the identity of the originating editor of this article needs to be redacted. Cindamuse (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above posts. Absolute spam stuff. What's the point of this? Why is there a location listing? And what about notability? みんな空の下 (トーク) 05:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Pure advertispam. Also SALT as there's a good likelihood the SPA will return to reintroduce this article. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all too common realtors' office, not notable by any stretch, and there is no way to find reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ELOS[edit]

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

In its current state, it seems to be nothing of notable importance. We have an Elos (note the capitalization), and this may be better as a redirect to that. ELOS is also the stock symbol for a company called Syneron Medical (an Israeli, NASDAQ-listed company that is not on WP at all), the name of an Italian aquarium company (Elos Ltd.), etc...we don't find europelearning.info until page 2 on Google. The editor doesn't seem to have much in the way of contributions - this and a college that is a member of the organization are his sole works (both articles he created). Raymie Humbert (t • c) 04:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2010 (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, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not so notable. I don't see very much notability from major reputable sources. みんな空の下 (トーク) 06:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treasures of the Snow[edit]

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

In its current state, no demonstration of notability, though apparently this book was made into a movie (looking at a quick search), which may be the saving grace for this article. As it is I could A7 it without anyone caring, but this article might be a candidate for a rescue. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 04:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Could not find Reliable Sources about this book, but the publisher claims it was a " continual best seller since its first publication more than 20 years ago" and was reprinted more than 20 times.[86] I would like to see some independent confirmation, but let's face it, "Christian" literature rarely gets much coverage. I could give this one a pass. --MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2010 (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, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Treasures of the snow is a novel by Patricia St. John. It is about one boy's mistake. That's the page. All of it. Non-notable, unwikified, unsourced vacuousness... Carrite (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Comment - Much improved now, no opinion as to worthiness of inclusion one way or the other. Carrite (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I will try to make this into a WP article (made a start this morning, but need more time). Keep for the moment until I've had a few days to make something of it. – Hebrides (talk) 06:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now had a go at turning this into an acceptable WP article. The plot summary still remains to be done (I commented out the empty section header until some content has been written). Comments/contributions would be welcome. — Hebrides (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved but I'd like to see a bit more improvement - especially plotwise - until I pull the plug on the AfD. The New Raymie (t • c) 00:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just borrowed the book from the public library today. Give me time to read it and I'll summarise the story for the article. Didn't just want to paraphrase a secondhand summary… — Hebrides (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a plot summary to the article, plus a short "Background" section. I'm not used to working on this type of article, so I looked at articles like The Wind in the Willows and Treasure Island to get some idea of the amount of detail that is expected in a plot summary. – Hebrides (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. None of my concerns apply about this article now, so I'm effectively withdrawing my nomination and waiting for closure. The New Raymie (t • c) 19:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Glad you originally decided to go for an AfD instead of an A7 – I unexpectedly got to read a well-written and thought-provoking little story because of your decision, and Wikipedia gained another article. — Hebrides (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malta Music Awards[edit]

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

A search for "Malta Music Awards" turns up no significant coverage from reliable sources; this may not meet our notability criteria. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 04:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm finding coverage regarding it: [87], [88], [89], [90]. The article undoubtedly needs to be expanded and referenced, but it does not warrant deletion. GorillaWarfare ^talk 15:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2010 (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, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- "Malta Music Awards" (with quotes) has 125,000 hits on Google. Given that Malta has a population of only about 400,000 people, and given the need to avoid systemic bias (eg towards only the largest English speaking countries), it belongs here. BUT needs a lot more development. A clearly neglected article.Boxter1977 (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered in Maltese media as above, and we need to not have a bias here. Esteffect (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —fetch ·comms 00:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adventuress Wanted (film)[edit]

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

Gulture (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2009 documentary film. Little evidence of notability. Has been shown at some film festivals. DVD not yet released. Doesn't appear to have any reviews. Fails WP:NFILM. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTABILITY - This being the English Wikipedia and all I have this curious notion we should be looking for notability in English language sources. The article has two sources in what look to me to be Swedish newspapers but despite the fact that the film itself is in English (and a very enjoyable film it is too) I could find nothing in English language sources except blogs and such. I therefore suggest it is not yet sufficiently notable to be included. Cottonshirt τ 18:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment English sources are the preferred, but non-English sources are acceptable if their English equivalents are not available. A simple lack of English sources is not automatically indicative of non-notability. As the film is written and directed by the same fellow who founded the Bandit Rock radio station in Sweden, it is not at all surprising that there are Swedish sources even in the lack of English. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A link to a newspaper in a language you can neither read nor understand is not a source, it is an appeal to the integrity of the Wikipedian who posted it. So whilst it sounds hugely democratic and inclusive to say that foreign language sources are acceptable, it is actually an admission that sources are not relevant, do not have to support the claims they are provided to support and can in fact be ignored for all practical purposes because it doesn't matter whether readers can even understand them.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. Please explain why I am wrong. Cottonshirt τ 17:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No harm in being Devil's Advocate. Check WP:NONENG. Yes, English sources are the preferred, but not the only language that can establish notability. If non-English sources are used, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors... and you can ask the author to provide such. That you or I might not be able to read the source in its original language, does not mean it cannot be used as a source, and that a source is not in English does in no way infer that the source is not relevent. Point of fact, we have many notable foreign films shared here on en.Wikipedia... films that have large amounts of non-English sources and ver few English ones. Being in other languages does not denigrate the source, nor the topic. There is an entire project Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias dedicated to addressing such tasks. I'm not saying this film here is notable or not, as I have not requested translated of the Swedish sources. What I am saying is that non-English sources might eventually establish it as notable, and a verified notability in Sweden would be notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:02, 3 August 2010 (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, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I am not Swedish not am I event remotely familiar with the Swedish language, but that does not stop me from checking the non-English sources already in the article via machine translation (I chose Google translate) to confirm that the articles are about this film. Ideally more sources would be good but what is already there is sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This [91] source is a tabloid and more about Thomas McAlevey and barely mentions the film (according to machine translation). It is a brief four-question yes-no interview. This [92] is slightly more detailed but talks more about the creator and trip than the film. Is it even much of a reliable source? The third is a blog and can be discounted. The article itself contains puffery in an attempt to mask notability: "The Swedish press closely followed their trip to its conclusion", "a successful Western businessman" etc. Because this is an English-language film, you would expect a "notable" film to have sources in this language but it barely does. Seems to me the only reason the creator got the coverage he did was because he was an American living in Sweden - and they considered this to be a curiousity (and weird combination of X and Y not= notability). Basically it is miles away from meeting the criteria at WP:NFILM: no reviews from nationally known critics, no major awards etc. I also think this is a promotional piece with possible COI issues. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respects to our Devil's Advocate, being a "Tabloid" is not the negative often implied by usage of the term, as due to publication costs, many respected news sources use that smaller reporting format. One might more resonably infer that Swedish press interest in the individual and his project stems less from him being simply being an "American", and more from his having been the individual who founded the successful Bandit Rock radio station in Stockholm, Sweden, thus making him a "successful Western" businessman" in Stockholm. However, any seeming appearance of fluff and hyperbole can either be sourced to be shown as factual, or modified for tone through regular editing... which as an adressable concern does not require a flat deletion. And also of note, the subordinant criteria at WP:NF are set to be supportive to considerations for inclusion, and not intended to be exclusionary... as an assertion of winning an award is intended to encourage editors to find sources toward the article topic... and not winning does not autmatically equate to non-notable. Many films find a home in Wikipedia despite never having never won an award... and many do not find a home despite having won many. Another point to address is attention of Swedish press to a Swedish film being in English (much a second-language in non-English Western nations). A lack of English-language reviews for a new film that has not (as yet) screened in any English-language country is also not a negative. One looks first to the country where it DID screen, no matter the language of the film or of the country. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ^talk 03:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus Peace Bazaar[edit]

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

Expired PROD notice removed by creator without comment or significant improvement of article or addition of sources to assert notability. Reason for original PROD: Possibly fails WP:ORG and/or WP:CLUB Kudpung (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2010 (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, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails wp:gng. No significant coverage in reliable sources. --Claritas § 21:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:SPIP. I researched Benjamin J. Broome, finding that he is a professor at ASU, and this is his area of research and involvement. While published by academic journals, his original work is the only source of verification or evidence that this is an event of any significance. --Sarasco (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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